Asteroid rotating, chroma key animation
Animation of an asteroid in a tumbling rotation. Asteroids are small rocky bodies formed early in the history of the solar system. This clip is supplied on a green background for chroma key compositing.
CHROMA-KEY - ASPARAGUS
CHROMA-KEY - ROTATING BUNCH OF ASPARAGUS (AGAINST WHITE/NEUTRAL BACKGROUND)
CONVENTION CHROMA KEY
ORIG COLOR 275 SILENT. C.S. VO KING ON LEBANESE WAR & SYRIAN PRESENCE. END C.S. EXTS. MADISON SQ. GARDEN, ABC VIDEO CONTROL TRUCK OUTSIDE. HA M.S.G. HA'S EMPTY (EXCEPT FOR STAFF) DEM. NAT'L CONVENTION AUDITORIUM. CI: BUILDINGS: N. Y. MADISON SQ. GARDEN. POLITICS: CONVENTIONS DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL'76. GEOGRAPHIC: N. Y. C.
Fast Images Library
Parade - small town, Vt., castle, knight puts on armor, preparation, castle, knights riding, handshake, medieval times, parade, gospel choir, race cars - pit stop, teamwork, bobsled, ice skater (figure skating), luge, emergency room, hospital, doctor and nurse, family camping - tent falls in blooper like situation, mom and kid on ride in amusement park, desert POV, dune buggy POV on rough road, computer screen, testing cars, man at desk, pit stop - racecars, red viper sports car down road, chroma key process plate movie making with two people in car, avalanche
MAKING OF “HOLLOW MAN” (8/9/2000)
A LOOK BEHIND THE SCENES AT THE MAKING OF THE MOVIE, “HOLLOW MAN.”
MAKING OF PERFECT S
00:00:00:00 - no font vs of large set /tank chroma key of boat getting doused with water, and waves, George Clooney driving boat (0:00) /
1990's stock shots
MS OF RED STAGE CURTAIN OPENING FROM THE CENTER BY GOLDEN ROPES. STAGE CURTAIN OPENS REVELING AN EMPTY BLUE SCREEN CHROMA KEY BG. THEATRE STAGE OPENING VIP SHOW START STARTING
Bluescreen - Revolving Pressing Iron
An old style steel pressing iron, rotating against a keyable chroma-key blue screen backdrop.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / SWITCHED P1
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL 9:00:10 - baez raises objections about dr voss and his database. says there's no way to confirm any of his testimony. his opinions aren't in conformity with his research. baez he's asking people to trust him on what his research contains. baez wants him to turn over his research so defense can verify. 9:02:30 - jury returns. 9:03:45 - DR. ARPAD VASS CALLED TO STAND 9:04:15 - sr. research scientist at oak ridge lab in TN. been there 20 years. specializes in anthropology, biology, pathology. MS in forensic science. Phd Tennensee in anthropology. also worked as medical technologist. 9:06:30 - talks about his academic history, the "body farm", and how his Phd topic on forensic anthropology came about. was interested in post mortem issues. his dissertation was on biochemical parameters assoc. with human decomposition. 9:09:00 - talks about the (body farm) anthropological research facility. been there 20 years. was only place to study whole body decompositional events. outdoor faclity. began in 1972. at this time, there have been 11-hundred test subjects that have gone thru the facility. bodies left outside under various conditions. 9:10:45 - initial research was looking at chemical breakdown of soft tissue. we analyzed bodily fluids to deterimine what components could indicate how long someone has been dead. goes on to describe four stages of decomposition, a fresh stage, bloat stage, decay and dry. 9:12:30 - talks about early stage of decomposition. if someone dies suddenly, cells don't realize organism as dead and cells continue to metabolize. baez objects. overruled. one of the by products in carbon dioxide. normally it's released thru circulation. but since there's no more circulation, it builds up in cells in body. baez objects, overruled. 9:14:55 - talks about cells, and construct of cells. lysosomes, surrounded by membranes. baez objects, overruled. talks about nutrient rich fluids. this allows second process of decomp. to begin. 9:17:50 - talks about second stage of decomp. where body is liquified, broken down into smaller molecules and dissolution of soft tissue. 9:18:50 - talks about bloat stage. generates gas, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. baez objects, overruled. 9:20:25 - gases have no place to escape, builds up in abdominal region giving appearance of bloat. final stage of decomp is active decay. the major 40-80 percent of decomp. process. all the major liquification of soft tissue occurs. leads to final stage is the dry, skeletonized stage. 9:22:20 - four processes that are important in the rate of decomp. temperature is most important, second is presence of water. third is Ph, acidic level. fourth component is oxygen. 9:24:10 - higher temp. accelerates decomp. what were you looking at in initial study of post mortem interval? we were looking at liquification process. was anything in that liquid important in determining intervals. we found that fat and muscle breaks down into volatile fatty acids. 9:26:30 - talks about inorganic material. found a variety of inorganic components could be used to determine how long someone's been dead. as soft tissue goes away, inorganics become more important. inorganics are calcium, magnesium, etc. published article in 1992 on fatty acids. 9:28:15 - during volatile fatty acid paper, employed at university. awarded Phd based on that work in 1991. went to work for oak ridge in 1992. the department of energy runs a number of labs across country, oak ridge is one of them. has 4-5 thousand employees, number of key areas of research. complicated, requires large teams. 9:31:20 - we have to have expertise in a variety of fields, i may not have a phd in that field but i have to know more than the average person. talks about expertise in microbiology. most projects are multi disciplinary. after the third model we developed based on how tissue breaks down in very early decomp stages, i reached the limit of my knowledge and wanted to research other aspects. that happened in 2001. 9:33:40 - i like challenges. up to that point, i thought time since death was most difficult question a forensic anthropologist could answer. i was wrong. i moved into the detection of clandestine graves, especially if graves are several years old. 9:35:40 - what method did you use to find clandestine graves? we looked at odor evolutions for decomp events. to do that we used the body farm. we buried a number of individuals. we put in a pipe systems above and below bodies and we began monitoring which chemicals are being produced during decomp. we looked at which of compounds made it all the way up to soil column and escaped at the surface. those would be detected by cadaver dogs. 9:37:40 - in initial 10 years of working in forensic anthro, smell decomposing remains at various stages? followed approx 50 individuals from start to finish. fresh when they came in, ended up skeletons. looked at hundreds of individuals at single time points. is odor of human decomp unique? yes. there are publications that describe what chemical components are. 9:39:50 - have you had experience of doing work with animal decomp and the odor? yes, at the facility the animals include pigs. we have deer, dogs, cats we have sampled over the years. is odor of human decomp distinguishable from those other things? i think yes. animals tend to have a more muskier scent, domesticated animals have sweeter scent. 9:41:30 - study using buried bodies began in 2002 and it ended early 2007. published a study in journal of forensic science in 2004. looked at environmental factors. object, sidebar 9:44:15 - APPROACH 9:54:30 - the study with varying individuals continued but at that point we looked at individuals decomping on surface. your work with above ground bodies took place at the body farm. looked at 10 surface individuals. some lying on surface, some lying with tarps on tops, some encased in body bags. 9:56:45 - in piping system there are ports and end of each pipe. we collected air containing the odor on a triple-sorbent pad. piece of metal has three types of this activated carbon in it. it captures odor components on activated carbon and you take that back to lab to analyze. for surface bodies, we dangled air trap close to body, put under tarp or in body bag. the tube is then removed, ends are sealed, and anaylze at lab. you heat the metal tube and as tube heats up the activated carbon releases odor compounds, and those are captured. 9:59:30 - odor molecules are frozen and condensed into tiny pellets. can you detect even minute compounds? that's the point of cryo-focusing yes. there were used in both buried and above ground remains. 10:00:45- above ground remains studied for 2-3 years. in initial stages of decomp, we took samples weekly, then bi-weekly, to monthly as body became skeletonized. surface individuals we did weekly. did you update findings in 2004 paper? yes, new findings were in 2008 paper. state submits dr. vass as expert witness. objection, judge allows him as expert witness. 10:02:20 - vass was contacted by yuri melich in 2008. did you have discussion about what they had? i believe so. did they send you some items of evidence to exam? yes. approaches witness. vass was sent metal evidence can first. shown box. ashton opens box. vass takes evidence out of box and IDs it. 10:06:30 - another SIDEBAR 10:10:20 - metal can received into evidence. ashton shows him plastic bag with air sample from trunk. dr. marcus wise analyzed the sample. not sure how sample was collected. not by normal procedure. don't recall results. did you ask orange co. sheriffs to take air samples? i did i sent them an air pump, used to collect air samples thru triple-sorbent traps. are they same devices you used in your studies? the traps, yes. this pump was portable. we use a plug in one at facility. 10:13:10 - did you get back the tubes from various locations relevant to this case? yes, correct. ashton shows him items, evidence. 10:15:30 - items moved into evidence. RECESS 10:44:15 - in actual analysis of items you were sent, assisted with other members? correct. dr. marcus wise, analytical chemist. the lab used to analyze these samples is his lab. he has to make sure instruments are working properly. what was used to analyze the odors? a gas chromatograph spectrometer. 10:46:30 - talks about how evidence in can was analyzed. the can lid was cracked, a syringe was inserted and a sample was removed and injected into gas chroma spect. dr. wise did test. baez objects, overruled. 10:48:40 - what were results of that inital test? SIDEBAR 10:49:50 - SHOT OF GEORGE AND CINDY IN COURTROOM 11:00:30 - did you go over chromatogram of initial results yes, it showed one large peak and a large number of small peaks. the large peak was choloform. is chloroform a compound you've dealt with in research? yes, it's a decomp. event product. what was next step? the reason we progessed is because the cholor was shockingly high, unusually high. because of that, and because of small peaks, we decided to concentrate air sample to ge tbetter representation. did you use same technique of cryo tracking?> yes. you were with dr. wise in room when it was done? yes. the analysis. we actually removed the piece of carpet from metal can. 11:03:00 - we weren't sure if air in can represented what was coming off carpet. put carpet sample in plastic bag, and incubated it for 2 days at 35 celsius ...body temp. what is purpose of incubating? because sample came from trunk of car in florida, we anticipated trunk temp to be warm pluse as you incubate this it speeds of evolution of these compounds. purpose was to get substance released in air? yes, we wanted to determine absolutely what compounds were being liberated from carpet exclusively. how do you take sample from bag? from that bag we extract 10 ml of air and did gcs anaylsis. 11:06:15 - what were the results? object, overuled. we were able to ID 51 individual chemical components. chloroform was one of those. large peaks, tall peaks indicated a concentrated amount. the largest peak was chloroform. did the amount you found surprise you? we were shocked. we've never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples in 20 years. it can be byproduct of decomp? yes, we have seen it in parts per trillion. did you quantify the amount of cholorform in air sample? we made a rough approximation. 11:09:10 - rough approximation was parts per million. did you try to do a more precise measure? no we did not. further quantification wouldn't have been helpful. chloroform has high rate of evaporation. let's say it appeared in trunk of car at some time in the past. over time it's evaporated. at that point when it was collected after all this evaporation took place we were still at parts per million range. 11:11:20 - did you obtain and test piece of carpet from similar vehicle? yes we did. we tested it. ahston shows him document. admitted into evidence. published to jury 11:13:30 - vass talks about top graph, chromatogram of actual test. circles it on screen, the chlorofom peak. numbers off to left are rough approx of how much material is present. the top number is 16 million. this is sample from carpet from car in this case. does this show other peaks. says there are a number of them, circles another region, that represents variety of compounds associated with gasoline. 11:16:10- overlapping compounds bet. gas and odor of human decomp? yes. vass looks at second chart. it's chromatogram of sample from car from junkyard in knoxville, tn. car of similar make. this does show peak for chloroform, cirlces it on the screen in red. 11:18:45 - what level of chloro found in control carpet? peak height is no more than 5 thousand. compared to 16 million in trunk. 11:20:30 - that cholo level in control sample is typical in environmental samples....we consider it trace amounts. after completing the evaluation, did you do additional test on carpet? we used laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. searched for inorganic material. 11:23:10 - what does the laser actually do? it's directed on to carpet. when the laser hits the sample it creates and excited state. a lot of heat is generated. when laser is shut off, electrons fall down to unexcited state. as the electrons fall to ground state, they emit energy as a photon of light. that light is picked up to spectrometer, which can detect it. every element produces a certain characteristic. 11:25:30 - used on carpet sample. utilize those results in final opinion? i did. what is signficance of results of that exam? we were looking for elevated inorganic components consistent with decomp. event such as calcium, etc. we used test to non-destructively exam that carpet to look for these elements. ashton shows vass a document 11:27:50 - baez questions, begins proffer. you're not a physicist? correct. i have used lasers, i'm laser qualified. you have no knowledge of how this test was conducted? i know the procedure. it's well established. i was not present. LET'S REMOVE THE JURY. 11:29:45 - CHAPTER 9704 FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE. REFERENCES DATA AN EXPERT CAN REFERENCE. IF REASONABLY RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT OPINION EXPRESSED, THE FACTS AND DATA MAY NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. PART OF EVIDENCE CODE ALLOWS EXPERTS TO USE INFORMATION TO RENDER AN OPINION. MR BAEZ, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE WANTING TO ATTACK SOME METHODOLOGY. THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. SO TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, EXPERT WITNESSES ARE ABEL TO RELY ON REPORTS OF OTHERS IN FORMULATING THEIR OPINIONS. WHAT YOU MAY GO INTO ARE PROPER SUBJECT FOR CROSS EXAM BUT NOT DEALING WITH WHAT YOU INDICATED. YOU CAN CONTINUE PROFER SO WE CAN SEE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. 11:33:30 - the results of exam were what? showed that inorganic elements assoc with human decomp were significantly elevated from control sample. what compounds were found? calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon, iron. you don't regularly conduct libs exams? personally, know. these items are found in environ? elements found in anything known to man. i know which inorganic elements are elevated during decomp events so i can make a conlusion since all of these elements are elevated, its another corroboration what my nose tells me is correct. 11:36:00 - you could gain some knowledge from these chemicals related to your studies? yes. but that comparative anaylsis can only be done on buried bodies, bodies in bags. that;s not true, you can compare anything you want. you can compare chem output of libs to buried body to surface body? i don't think you understand what's happening here. we compared trunk of car to control samples in junk yard. you can't compare soil sample to paint chip on wall. 11:38:30 - the only comparison you did was bet. junk yard and car in this case? correct. that's the only type of testimony you can give? in terms of libs, yes. 11:39:20 - objection, overruled. I'M GOING TO ASK STATE AND DEFENSE OVER NOON RECESS READ 2010 EDITION OF EARHART, FIRST TWO FULL PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH FOUNDATION REQUIRMENT THAT MUST BE LAID BEFORE EXPERTS CAN REGURGITATE OTHER THINGS. SO WE CAN MOVE MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 11:40:30 - JURY RETURNS 11:41:45 - shown chart on screen. indicates peak showing calcium. control sample shows junk yard sample. its essentially not even present. IDs calcium sample from trunk. one of key inorganics used in post mortem evaluation. 11:43:30 - did you also perform additional analysis of carpet? we did some chemical extractions. i did that. we cut off few of fibers, put it in solvent methanol, let it sit over night. then inject small amount into cgs system. used it to detect compounds in gaseous form. what are the compounds being evaporated off that sample. what did it find? we saw presence of buteric acid. one of volatile fatty acids used for post mortem interval determination. that is the first compound liberated during human decomp. 11:45:45- that was in carpet itself, correct. 11:45:25 - when you first opened can with the carpet sample, what was your reaction? i jumped back a foot or two. i was extremely shocked that the small sample could smell that strong. it smelled like human decomp. and i've never seen that in 20 years experience. you were also given another item of scrapings from wheel well? yes. vass IDs the evidence bag. moved into evidence. 11:48:50 - acedic acid is by product of human decomp. it's also byproduct of manufaturing chloroform. shown evidence bag. opens evidence bag. 11:51:00- vass IDs more samples of paper towels, moved into evidence. APPROACH 11:54:00 - SHOTS OF EVIDENCE BAGS 11:57:00 - ashton confirms samples of evidence were sealed when vass received them. baez inspects box. conditionally received into evidence. RECESS FOR LUNCH 13:32:10 - judge talks about movies being added to movie list ...21, the proposal, 51 first dates, dirty love, blue streak. asks for objections to those titles. 13:34:30 - talked about paper towel and napkins were analyzed using a chemical extraction with methanol. did you run thru cgs? correc. what were the results? the reason that done was because it revealed there were a number of fatty acids present on paper towels. they included oleac acid, stearic acid, palmetto acid. those particular acids make up gray wax ...byproduct of breakdown of fat. associate with decomp? yes. 13:36:30 - purpose of air smaples in garage? we wnated to cinform that the carept sample was point source of the odor. got air sampple from garbage in trunk? yes. was carpet ooint source? that is correct, confirmed that the carpet was the point sounce of the odor. we're looking at a comb of chem compounds. all other compoenents, trash, garage area, contained few compounds of relevance. found in high abundance in carpet samples. those compounds found in trash? no. garage? no 13:38:20 - what is sig of compounds found in carpet sample? odor analysis, each of those odors, is comprised of a number of chemcials. it's concentration and combination that makes those unique. these chem aren't unique in nature. rose may have 10, trash may have 20 chemicals. there's going to be small interaction bet. chemicals in rose and trash. it's chemicals present in each source that makes it unique. in the car trunk sample, we ID 51 ind. compounds. 41 were related to human decomp based on studies we've done over last several years. 13:40:45 - some overlappled gasoline. we eliminated those to avoid confusion. that left 24 compounds. of those we started looking at control samples. eliminated those found in control from junk yard, garage air, pizza box. that left approx 16 compounds. of those 16, seven are considered significant. in the 2008 paper that we published, we listed 30 compounds relevant and significant to human decomp. 13:42:40 - in the trunk of the car we found 13 from that list. we had to eliminate some due to overlap with gasoline. that left us seven. these 30 compounds, are those all appear at same stage of decomp? no, it's a study that comprised relevant compounds across different stages of decomp. (paraphrasing this here - goes on quite a bit about different cycles) 13:44:50 - it's highly unlikely at one time point in decomp you'd find all those present. eleminating gas and control samples, had 7 left. those were found to be in list of 30 compounds we think are most relevant. is there specific chem odor sig for human decomp? i do not think so. based on that eval of odor itself, any opinion about source of odor from car? i consider it consistent with human decomp. you examined scrapings from tire well, how does that fit in? the acedic acid is a product of human decomp. it's not one of most sig on list of 30. the exam of the spare tire cover? all the compounds, inorganic one would expect to see elevated in human decomp event were elevated. 13:47:40 - carpet of spare tire cover? buteric acid we don't see a lot of environmental samples and again is very consistent with a decomp event. you don't see it that often. the paper towels? the fatty tissue essentially includes all the fatty acids we identified on the towels. is it human? i don't think that alone can differentiate it. didn't delve deeply into the analysis. 13:49:55 - based on all of your tests, do you have an opinion about whether there was a decomposing body in the trunk of that car? i can find no other plausible explanation to explain all the results we found. CROSS EXAM 13:51:00 - you're not chemist? correct. biochemist? no. on your CV you put down BS in biology, MS in administration of justice. what is phd? anthropology. your report in this case is forensic? yes. you have two co-authors? correct, dr. martin, physicist and mark wise, chemist,under your name you put research scientist? correct. not anthropologist? correct. you'd refer to dr. wise on chemistry issues? we consult yes. when was last time you took course in chemistry? during my clinical pathologies degree, in the 1980s perhaps. have you held yourself as a chemist? no. 13:54:00 - have you read facebook account ....sustained. have you ever posted a facebook account? i have never posted facebook account on anything. wikipedia? i have never submitted anything to wikipedia. are you aware that one has been posted that .... sustained ....you have financial interest in your testimony? not in my opinion 13:55:30 - the publications is what i use to render opinions. the data base was used to present the data included in publications. how many chem compounds have you developed that comprise of this data base? 478, something like that.what you did with this research for 2004 paper, you buried 4 bodies? correct. and you set up contraptions? yes. allowed us to check soil column, reading at surface, etc. it took 17 days for the chemicals that are generated at body to migrate up soil column to the surface. chemicals are being generated at body interface before then. 13:58:00- this data base you haven't turned over to the defense? SIDEBAR. 14:00:10 - it's not mine to turn over. it's part of grant you were given? it's a deliverable for that organization that paid for that research. and that has not been turned over to defense? i don't know. i thought it was we had depo other day on data base. we've discussed you've used this data base and you turned it over to people who gave you grant? correct. part of what you do is you have to apply for and get grants? yes. you work for research lab? correct. different than forensic lab? yes. part of your job is to bring in sufficient money? yes. part of what you're doing is you hold patent for a device called the labrador? incorrect. inventor of it? listed as inventor on patent disclosure. 14:02:30 - what your goal is with this labrador is sell these units, hand held devices? correct. goal is to sell to police depts across country? in my position at lab we are required to disclose inventions. the end product was an instrument to aid and augment cadaver dogs. because of that project an invention was developed. we correctly filed an invention disclosure based on that instrument. it's labs decision to file patent on that. it's not my decision. 14:04:00- goal is to sell this to police across country? no my goal isn't to sell these at all, my goal is creat a tech tool that police could use in locating clandestine graves. before device can be built, you have to have validation of that data base in court of law? sustained, next quesiont. you get royalties if this device is sold? i honestly don't understand the tech transfer process. if licensee comes in there's a royalty fee associated with that. it's insignificant. 14:06:10 - you get 15 percent of royalties? split between inventors, correct. when you billed out for work, you billed to labrador project, same funding source? no, this was done voluntarily on my own time. this labrador, when you applied for this patent in 2006? that was the first patent disclosure on a prototype that did not end up being the final product. APPROACH 14:12:00 - when publish articles you have to have financial disclosure? i dont think thats true. that's true for certain journals, not all. when you filed report in this case, did you disclose financial interest? vass doesn't understand question. in report in this case, you disclosed financial interest in data base? in report to detective no i did not disclose that. difference bet. research lab and forensic lab is research lab does experiments? 14:13:45 - for the work you did in this case, there are no protocols? in this case the protocols are published in 2008 article. different than what you did in this case? i don't think so. you're asking about procedure, we used the same procedures in 2008 and this case. there is nothing in writing that tells you what procedure you must do when? all you have to look at methods section in peer reviewed paper. the publications you studied have to do with buried remains? buried remains were part of 2004 study. 2008 study looked at surface remains. you don't have quality control at research lab? what do you mean .... you run blanks, standards, that's all part of quality control. 14:16:10 - anything in writing that proper steps were taken to avoid contamination? what type are you referring to ...are you saying instrument contaminated or sample ...either one? i think in bench notes dr. wise wrote he said blanks run, machines calibrated. in this case, you did what was called a qualitative analysis? correct. that means you're Identifying chemicals? correct. as opposed to quantitative telling you how much? yes. 14:18:10 - the research that you testified to was qualitative? correct, we were looking to see if compounds present, plus or minus and rough idea of abundance. you issued report in august as premliminary? yes, i typically do that. it's not your final conclusions? correct. 14:19:30 - APPROACH ? 14:25:30 - within days it became public did it not? i don't know. you were aware this info was released to public? i was made aware, but i didn't do it. do you recall email with csi vincent? i was upset by media attention, yes. it's your understanding your conclusions were being discussed without you finishing work? yes. i was not pleased with it. motion to strike granted. 14:27:30 - how many chemicals did you say you found from carpet sample? i don't have report in front of me, i think 54 was number at that time. in second report did you list? do not recall. shows him report. 14:29:30 - in report two, you had 51? correct. but this was same report? yes, but we realized there was some overlap with gasoline. as we went thru those chemicals, we eliminated duplications missed in prelim report. on report 1, you found 43 consistent with decomp.? yes, that would make sense. when you found 51 in second one, you found 41 consistent with decomp event? correct. you found on first report, 19 of these overlapped? ok. in second report, 17 overlapped with gasoline? ok. 14:31:40 - came up with same percentage? i do not recall. it's possible yes. again conclusions in final report were not based on these numbers. again, i have to literally go thru every chemical to see if we used duplicate name. the final report is most accurate. in second report you went to junk yard and got three pontiac sunfires? yes, it was corrected to two in final report. we intentionally chose worst possible urban contaminated area. we considered new carpet to be unfair comparison. in report you put three? yes i think that error came from the fact we took two samples from one car. you take notes? sometimes i do sometimes i do not. have you reveiwed bench notes in this case? you mean ones dr. wise made in his analysis ... both he and you? i did not review those no. 14:34:45 - aware there were three cars selected? two cars ...results of that third sample? sustained. you don't know history of these cars at junk yard? correct. and dont know history of car in FL? correct. you're doing comparative analysis of junk yard and FL car? correct. one of the two cars had chloroform in trunk? trace amounts, correct. what you did was qualitative analysis? correct, but we did get rough idea of the difference. you've never done studies on carpet? no. you don't know chemical breakdowns of rose? no, just using that as example. 14:37:40 - you were given list of items found in trash? correct. you didn't see them? correct. you don't know chemical breakdown of each item? what i recall are empty plastic containers. don't have list in front of me. we sampled air of composition of all of these. taken in august 2008? i don't recall actual date. 14:39:10 - august 30, 2008, air sample was taken then? i would agree. this was not taken on july 15, 2008? no, you just said it wasn't. you know that air is a free flowing environment? absolutely. that chemical composition can change moment to moment? absolutely. and you did comparisons a month later? yes. you don't know what was done to garbage from july 15-august 30? i do not. you did table in final report? yes. it was complicated. you used these samples to reach these conclusions? that is correct. looks at table. 14:41:20 - you used air sample of trash found in vehicle? correct. you used air sample from passenger area of car? correct. air samples from garage? ok. air sample from garage? correct. air sample from inside the trash? yes.but you did not use air sample from trunk of car? in my table no but I mentioned it in the report. didn't use it because it was taken after it was removed. you used everything else but air from trunk of car? yes, but you have to understand when you collect a triplesorbent trap, that converts to 30-40 liters of air collected. that was compared to 10 mls of air off trunk liner and if you look at the table it indicates that without a doubt the point source of the odor was the trunk. air in trunk was not a valid comparison after the trunk liner was removed. 14:45:40 - you found 7 of the 34 compounds? yes because of trace levels we considered five, we were very very conservative. there were overlaps that broke it down to three? in most cases there were trace amounts. there were three that did not overlap from list of 30? i don't agree, you have to look at chemical composition of each sample. 14:47:30 - 3 chemicals out of 30 you consider significant in human decomposition? that's an unfair statement. there's a process called diffusion. if the trash was in the car and trunk liner was eminating high concentrations, small amt of material could get on trash. when we collected 30 odd liters and found it we reported it. i'd go with eight but in conclusions we went with 5 14:48:50 - out of what we have here, excluding overlap, baez is off mic ........can't HEAR him. 14:49:50 - you cannot account for it but you can make a conclusion based on diffusion? assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions, yes, commom sense included. now i'd like to talk about laser tests. you are not a physicist? correct. the compounds that came up? it was calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon and iron. these are found in numerous items in the environment? absolutely. and they're found in common trash? i don't know that. i haven't done inorganic analysis of common trash. this car from junk yard, the levels are much lower than the one in fl? correct. you don't know how long car was in junk yard? no. 14:52:50 - you compared only 2 cars to the car in FL, which you have no history of? yes, we considered worst case scenario in urban junk yard you'd have all these things that could contaminate. you did not collect those samples? no. in most cases trunk lid was unlocked. AFTERNOON RECESS. 15:12:10 - jury returns 15:13:30 - you knew he trunk was sprayed with bluestar? yes. used to detect blood? yes. 15:14:50 - baez looks thru notes. now consults with his attorneys 15:16:10 - the spraying of carpet sample with bluestar was never done? it wasn't in trunk of the car apparently. someone went to a website and printed out the ingredients? material safety data sheets. yes. nothing further done? no when a chemist looked at the sheets and said those chemicals couldn't have contributed. you knew trunk was sprayed with febreze? yes. you didn't know effects those chemicals would have with those in trunk of car? no. 15:18:10 - baez writes down chemicals on white board. calcium, sodium, magnesium, iron, carbon. how many of these would you guess if you picked up a piece of soil from ground? small amounts of any of those might be present. 15:20:10 - the paper towels had different fatty acids? correct. these included palmetic acid, stearic acid, oleic and myristic? correct. 15:22:15- you said in report these are fatty acids that are like some word i can't understand. (attafacere?) is found in marshes? yes. 15:23:40 - on the paper towel found in the trash, you could find these items in a hamburger? i don't know if that's true. it would have to raw with huge percentage of fat on it. in chicken? i don't know. you have never studied whether you can find this in meat products? the formation of attapocea is favored by a number of issues. one is an anaeroboric environment, one is temp and one is moisture level. those things need to be in conjunction for attopocea to form. can these be found in meat products? i would think in mammals that would be tru. 15:26:30 - found small amounts of thc? yes, byproducts of marijuana. is it still your testimony the samples are from someone with attopocea or the munchies? the meat would have to be raw, loaded with bacteria, have anaerobic conditions it would have to be done with bag over your head and with sig amount of material. 15:27:40 - how did marijuana get there, byproduct of decomp? no we wanted to be as thorough as possible. these protocols, is this the only times you've used this data base is in two cases? you'll have to qualify. did you find hidden graves in barker ranch in CA ....APPROACH, SIDEBAR Jury dismissed. 15:38:30 - baez proceeds with proffer. in 2008, you were asked to analyze soil samples for barker ranch correct? yes. you were sent soil samples? correct. analyzed using gcs? yes. consistent with decomp. event? yes. you then went to trip to actual site? correct. you used instruments in areas IDed by cadaver dogs? correct. a magnetometer was utilized and ground penetrating radar. and excavation ensued? and exploratory excavation. at depth we dug we didn't find anything. but at point we were digging, we hit depth that was surface of site. bodies had been there 40-50 years. conclusion was that this science was in infancy? my statement was we didn't understand environmental factors but science is well established. did you make that statement to member of media that science is in infancy? sustained. the only time you have used this specific science to find a body was barker ranch? no. when you were not successful, what are you error rates for coming up with bodies using cgs? error rates are associated with a measurement. you cannot use that in this case. in 2007-08 time frame, as i explained further, we did not understand environmental parameters involved in this search. 15:43:31 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, NOW HE COMES BACK 15:44:110 - did you give statement to AP that we're trying to improve science? i cannot verify i said that. i don't know what inital question may have been, could be taken out of context, may be refering to environmental conditions. REDIRECT FOR PROFFER 15:45:15 - limitation in depth you could dig, why? time constraints. it was exploratory dig, not full investigation. no one knows if there is a body there? that is a fair statement. BARKER RANCH IS A RANCH WHERE MURDERED AND BURIED SOME PEOPLE. THESE MURDERS OCCURRED 40-50 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE AT ALL. THE QUESTION DEALING WITH BARKER RANCH, OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CROSS CONTAMINATION IN TRUNK VS ALLEGED ODOR OF DECOMP YOU CAN. BUT THE BARKER RANCH HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE. CONDITIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWED THEY HAVE SOME BEARING OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS CASE. 15:47:50 - jury returns, cross exam continues 15:49:10 - asks about protocols related to marijuana. would include proper selection of samples? it could yes. you would have protocols that tell people to avoid storing in areas with gasoline? that's true. you have told people to not contaminate these areas near gasoline? common sense, yes. this area was near gasoline? yes, that's where evidence was. another protocol is that collection be free of trash debris that could result in false positive ...those are your protocols? yes but you can't take that out of context. from what i recall we wrote those in response to an investigator who wanted to collect environmental samples in large open field area. you don't want to collect control sample in pile of trash. you have to take that statement into context. 15:52:10 - again, if i remember correctly we were collecting outdoor soil samples in very large and question came up to collect control sample. because you don't want them collecting these samples near trash? it wouldn't make sense in 40 acre field. cuz they could create false positives? true unless it's part of a crime scene, which is what you need to collect evidence. 15:53:20 - SIDEBAR 16:02:40 - you talked about ability to find clandestine graves? sustained. do you know what divining rods are? yes. they are antennae used to locate properties of specific materials. can it be made from coat hanger? yes. have you taught on this subject? yes, it's a hobby like stamp collecting and it's a wonderful way to teach science. MOVE ON MR BAEZ GET TO THE POINT. 16:04:10 - you have attempted to put electronic leashes on flies? sustained. the testimony you have given today is first time you've given this testimony in court of law? correct. not admitted in any court in country? i wouldn't know that. i don't know if anyone else has data base perhaps, i don't know that. your findings are not generally accepted in scientific community. sustained STRUCK FROM RECORD. any papers that have same findings as you? there is a paper by dr. stephanapolis that looked at whole bodies and he id'ed four chemicals we used in this case. he did not find chloroform. mr stepha is located in greece? correct. in entire world, the only person you think agrees with your finding is ....sustained. the only other study you find is a person in greece? i think he's the only one who have used entire bodies. others have used pieces of tissue. he used other data base? yes, he looked at single time point. we did a 5 year study. 16:07:30 - the smell of human decomp is unique? to me it is, yes. he asked you what your opinion was and you said smell is unique? yes. recall statement to knoxville news human decomp smells like a potato gone bad? i believe i made that statement yes. we actually looked at decomposing potato and chemical composition is completely different. one of key markers of decomp is flouride is one of chemical signatures? a halogenated flouride compound yes. in this case you didn't find flouride? no, not in positive control either. 16:09:50 - the positive control was a blanket from body of a child in trunk of car for three months? correct. don't know circumstances on recovery, storage? correct. nevertheless we saw the primary sulfer compounds and point of control was to show compounds found in fl trunk could be found in a trunk. you're twisting things around a tad. we're looking at 30 compounds. it leaves 10 compounds of 30 that were relevant, we found 8 in trunk of the car. 16:12:00 - we did chemical analysis, we know makeup. don't know history, no. you have no idea what was in the trunk of this car in the 10 years it was in existence? no i do not. you have no idea of what chemical makeup of any of the junk yard samples? no, we analyzed and know what gasses are liberated. the child in montana case was wrapped in blanket, that was stained, thank goodness we don't find many children in cars. 16:13:45 - this is the first time you've conducted experiment on carpet sample? wonderful thing about forensic science is every sample is unique. correct. 16:15:10 - you are not member of american academy of forensic science? no, not currently. you're not a member of the american board of anthropology? no. not member of any professional organization? no my background is so diverse i wouldn't know which one to join. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS REDIRECT; 16:16:30 - which governs your career more, scientific curiousity or financial benefit? scientific scientist, i'm very curious. last 10 years of career has focused on biochemistry. do you have financial interest in this case? not at all. do you recall depo with mr baez ...inquisition you mean. ...you were asked questions about patent and royalty issue. did you have to refer to someone else to get answers? yes, i had no clue about procedures. didn't know how it worked, it never interested me. 16:18:10 - in seeking control sample of carpet, did you try to find most contaminated carpet? yes. was getting sample part of reason you went to junk yard? absolutely. you talked about diffusion. explain? it is a process where chemicals go from higher to lower concentrations. is that significant in finding point source in this case? yes. what was that item? spare tire cover carpet sample. 16:19:55 - you were asked about bluestar and febreze. you looked up material safety data sheet on those? yes. it is a source of info relied upon in your field? before we use any chemical in national lab we must consult with msds. did either chemical contain chloroform? no. 16:20:55 - fatty acids in paper towels, you said it could come from meat? it would have to be raw, uncooked, high amount of fat, from a mammal, sufficient size to create stain in trunk. have to decompose in anaerobic environ, temp would have to be correct. have to have pounds of hamburger, wrapped up in bag, left to rot with bacteria found in human body? it may cause it. could it be caused by someone eating hamburger and wiping face? no. have seen evidence of pieces of hamburger? no. 16:22:55 - asked about greek study, did he find compounds among 478 you had found? i don't recall, i know there was quite a bit of overlap. the positive control you used, describe? since we had never studied a human decomposing in trunk before, we looked for a person decomposing in trunk. it's unfortunate but we were to find another case in montana where 4 year old died, wrapped in blanket and left in car for 3 months. point of control was to confirm compounds we found in florida trunk could be formed in that type of environment. how did test on carpet in this case compare? 4 of the 5 compounds were present, except chloroform. 16:25:30 - absence of flouride compounds, did you test control for them? if they had been present we would have IDed them. were they present? no. why? adults we've studied over years produce a number of flourinated compounds. it is assumed that flourine is these compounds accumulate in body thru bio accumulation. like eating lead paint chips. over time what you do is if you drink flourinated water over your lifetime, you will bioaccumulate flourine in bone tissue. upon death, bacteria convert to flourinated compounds. 16:27:40 - in a small child, it is assumed child - enough time has not passed to begin bioaccumulating in the body. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECROSS 16:28:40 - you addressed issue of flouride in report? i did yes. not studied in children. you're willing to testify that the reason you didn't find flouride is because she's a child and she didn't drink enough water? bioaccumulation is a well known phenomonon in animal kingdom. that is my opinion that that has happened. based on something never been studied? not studied but found in well known phenomenon called bioaccumulation. 16:30:20 - paper towels found in trash bag? i believe that's what i was told. the reason we did that is because dr. haskell sent me those paper towels. on those he IDes fly pupil casings. withdraws question. 16:31:30 - you have no first hand knowledge that those paper towels have anything to do with that stain? i do not. if it's found in conjunction with evidence in that car i don't see why it's not relevant. 16:32:30 - you don't know if the paper towel was used to clean up meat or counter? there was no meat residue on towel we extracted. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECESS AT 16:36:00 DUE TO FACT THAT NEXT WITNESS WILL TAKE MORE THAN 25 MINUTES FOR DIRECT. NEW LIST OF MOVIES SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN APPROVED. JURY DISMISSED FOR THE DAY. 16:37:59- ashton: defense has served him with interstate subpeona for data base, state wants to quash the subpeona. 16:40:00 baez says he'll withdraw the subpeona. ashton off mic asks another question. can't hear it. baez says he would call dr. vass in case, subject to recall.
Asteroid rotating, chroma key animation
Animation of an asteroid in a tumbling rotation. Asteroids are small rocky bodies formed early in the history of the solar system. This clip is supplied on a green background for chroma key compositing.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / SWITCHED P2
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL 9:00:10 - baez raises objections about dr voss and his database. says there's no way to confirm any of his testimony. his opinions aren't in conformity with his research. baez he's asking people to trust him on what his research contains. baez wants him to turn over his research so defense can verify. 9:02:30 - jury returns. 9:03:45 - DR. ARPAD VASS CALLED TO STAND 9:04:15 - sr. research scientist at oak ridge lab in TN. been there 20 years. specializes in anthropology, biology, pathology. MS in forensic science. Phd Tennensee in anthropology. also worked as medical technologist. 9:06:30 - talks about his academic history, the "body farm", and how his Phd topic on forensic anthropology came about. was interested in post mortem issues. his dissertation was on biochemical parameters assoc. with human decomposition. 9:09:00 - talks about the (body farm) anthropological research facility. been there 20 years. was only place to study whole body decompositional events. outdoor faclity. began in 1972. at this time, there have been 11-hundred test subjects that have gone thru the facility. bodies left outside under various conditions. 9:10:45 - initial research was looking at chemical breakdown of soft tissue. we analyzed bodily fluids to deterimine what components could indicate how long someone has been dead. goes on to describe four stages of decomposition, a fresh stage, bloat stage, decay and dry. 9:12:30 - talks about early stage of decomposition. if someone dies suddenly, cells don't realize organism as dead and cells continue to metabolize. baez objects. overruled. one of the by products in carbon dioxide. normally it's released thru circulation. but since there's no more circulation, it builds up in cells in body. baez objects, overruled. 9:14:55 - talks about cells, and construct of cells. lysosomes, surrounded by membranes. baez objects, overruled. talks about nutrient rich fluids. this allows second process of decomp. to begin. 9:17:50 - talks about second stage of decomp. where body is liquified, broken down into smaller molecules and dissolution of soft tissue. 9:18:50 - talks about bloat stage. generates gas, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. baez objects, overruled. 9:20:25 - gases have no place to escape, builds up in abdominal region giving appearance of bloat. final stage of decomp is active decay. the major 40-80 percent of decomp. process. all the major liquification of soft tissue occurs. leads to final stage is the dry, skeletonized stage. 9:22:20 - four processes that are important in the rate of decomp. temperature is most important, second is presence of water. third is Ph, acidic level. fourth component is oxygen. 9:24:10 - higher temp. accelerates decomp. what were you looking at in initial study of post mortem interval? we were looking at liquification process. was anything in that liquid important in determining intervals. we found that fat and muscle breaks down into volatile fatty acids. 9:26:30 - talks about inorganic material. found a variety of inorganic components could be used to determine how long someone's been dead. as soft tissue goes away, inorganics become more important. inorganics are calcium, magnesium, etc. published article in 1992 on fatty acids. 9:28:15 - during volatile fatty acid paper, employed at university. awarded Phd based on that work in 1991. went to work for oak ridge in 1992. the department of energy runs a number of labs across country, oak ridge is one of them. has 4-5 thousand employees, number of key areas of research. complicated, requires large teams. 9:31:20 - we have to have expertise in a variety of fields, i may not have a phd in that field but i have to know more than the average person. talks about expertise in microbiology. most projects are multi disciplinary. after the third model we developed based on how tissue breaks down in very early decomp stages, i reached the limit of my knowledge and wanted to research other aspects. that happened in 2001. 9:33:40 - i like challenges. up to that point, i thought time since death was most difficult question a forensic anthropologist could answer. i was wrong. i moved into the detection of clandestine graves, especially if graves are several years old. 9:35:40 - what method did you use to find clandestine graves? we looked at odor evolutions for decomp events. to do that we used the body farm. we buried a number of individuals. we put in a pipe systems above and below bodies and we began monitoring which chemicals are being produced during decomp. we looked at which of compounds made it all the way up to soil column and escaped at the surface. those would be detected by cadaver dogs. 9:37:40 - in initial 10 years of working in forensic anthro, smell decomposing remains at various stages? followed approx 50 individuals from start to finish. fresh when they came in, ended up skeletons. looked at hundreds of individuals at single time points. is odor of human decomp unique? yes. there are publications that describe what chemical components are. 9:39:50 - have you had experience of doing work with animal decomp and the odor? yes, at the facility the animals include pigs. we have deer, dogs, cats we have sampled over the years. is odor of human decomp distinguishable from those other things? i think yes. animals tend to have a more muskier scent, domesticated animals have sweeter scent. 9:41:30 - study using buried bodies began in 2002 and it ended early 2007. published a study in journal of forensic science in 2004. looked at environmental factors. object, sidebar 9:44:15 - APPROACH 9:54:30 - the study with varying individuals continued but at that point we looked at individuals decomping on surface. your work with above ground bodies took place at the body farm. looked at 10 surface individuals. some lying on surface, some lying with tarps on tops, some encased in body bags. 9:56:45 - in piping system there are ports and end of each pipe. we collected air containing the odor on a triple-sorbent pad. piece of metal has three types of this activated carbon in it. it captures odor components on activated carbon and you take that back to lab to analyze. for surface bodies, we dangled air trap close to body, put under tarp or in body bag. the tube is then removed, ends are sealed, and anaylze at lab. you heat the metal tube and as tube heats up the activated carbon releases odor compounds, and those are captured. 9:59:30 - odor molecules are frozen and condensed into tiny pellets. can you detect even minute compounds? that's the point of cryo-focusing yes. there were used in both buried and above ground remains. 10:00:45- above ground remains studied for 2-3 years. in initial stages of decomp, we took samples weekly, then bi-weekly, to monthly as body became skeletonized. surface individuals we did weekly. did you update findings in 2004 paper? yes, new findings were in 2008 paper. state submits dr. vass as expert witness. objection, judge allows him as expert witness. 10:02:20 - vass was contacted by yuri melich in 2008. did you have discussion about what they had? i believe so. did they send you some items of evidence to exam? yes. approaches witness. vass was sent metal evidence can first. shown box. ashton opens box. vass takes evidence out of box and IDs it. 10:06:30 - another SIDEBAR 10:10:20 - metal can received into evidence. ashton shows him plastic bag with air sample from trunk. dr. marcus wise analyzed the sample. not sure how sample was collected. not by normal procedure. don't recall results. did you ask orange co. sheriffs to take air samples? i did i sent them an air pump, used to collect air samples thru triple-sorbent traps. are they same devices you used in your studies? the traps, yes. this pump was portable. we use a plug in one at facility. 10:13:10 - did you get back the tubes from various locations relevant to this case? yes, correct. ashton shows him items, evidence. 10:15:30 - items moved into evidence. RECESS 10:44:15 - in actual analysis of items you were sent, assisted with other members? correct. dr. marcus wise, analytical chemist. the lab used to analyze these samples is his lab. he has to make sure instruments are working properly. what was used to analyze the odors? a gas chromatograph spectrometer. 10:46:30 - talks about how evidence in can was analyzed. the can lid was cracked, a syringe was inserted and a sample was removed and injected into gas chroma spect. dr. wise did test. baez objects, overruled. 10:48:40 - what were results of that inital test? SIDEBAR 10:49:50 - SHOT OF GEORGE AND CINDY IN COURTROOM 11:00:30 - did you go over chromatogram of initial results yes, it showed one large peak and a large number of small peaks. the large peak was choloform. is chloroform a compound you've dealt with in research? yes, it's a decomp. event product. what was next step? the reason we progessed is because the cholor was shockingly high, unusually high. because of that, and because of small peaks, we decided to concentrate air sample to ge tbetter representation. did you use same technique of cryo tracking?> yes. you were with dr. wise in room when it was done? yes. the analysis. we actually removed the piece of carpet from metal can. 11:03:00 - we weren't sure if air in can represented what was coming off carpet. put carpet sample in plastic bag, and incubated it for 2 days at 35 celsius ...body temp. what is purpose of incubating? because sample came from trunk of car in florida, we anticipated trunk temp to be warm pluse as you incubate this it speeds of evolution of these compounds. purpose was to get substance released in air? yes, we wanted to determine absolutely what compounds were being liberated from carpet exclusively. how do you take sample from bag? from that bag we extract 10 ml of air and did gcs anaylsis. 11:06:15 - what were the results? object, overuled. we were able to ID 51 individual chemical components. chloroform was one of those. large peaks, tall peaks indicated a concentrated amount. the largest peak was chloroform. did the amount you found surprise you? we were shocked. we've never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples in 20 years. it can be byproduct of decomp? yes, we have seen it in parts per trillion. did you quantify the amount of cholorform in air sample? we made a rough approximation. 11:09:10 - rough approximation was parts per million. did you try to do a more precise measure? no we did not. further quantification wouldn't have been helpful. chloroform has high rate of evaporation. let's say it appeared in trunk of car at some time in the past. over time it's evaporated. at that point when it was collected after all this evaporation took place we were still at parts per million range. 11:11:20 - did you obtain and test piece of carpet from similar vehicle? yes we did. we tested it. ahston shows him document. admitted into evidence. published to jury 11:13:30 - vass talks about top graph, chromatogram of actual test. circles it on screen, the chlorofom peak. numbers off to left are rough approx of how much material is present. the top number is 16 million. this is sample from carpet from car in this case. does this show other peaks. says there are a number of them, circles another region, that represents variety of compounds associated with gasoline. 11:16:10- overlapping compounds bet. gas and odor of human decomp? yes. vass looks at second chart. it's chromatogram of sample from car from junkyard in knoxville, tn. car of similar make. this does show peak for chloroform, cirlces it on the screen in red. 11:18:45 - what level of chloro found in control carpet? peak height is no more than 5 thousand. compared to 16 million in trunk. 11:20:30 - that cholo level in control sample is typical in environmental samples....we consider it trace amounts. after completing the evaluation, did you do additional test on carpet? we used laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. searched for inorganic material. 11:23:10 - what does the laser actually do? it's directed on to carpet. when the laser hits the sample it creates and excited state. a lot of heat is generated. when laser is shut off, electrons fall down to unexcited state. as the electrons fall to ground state, they emit energy as a photon of light. that light is picked up to spectrometer, which can detect it. every element produces a certain characteristic. 11:25:30 - used on carpet sample. utilize those results in final opinion? i did. what is signficance of results of that exam? we were looking for elevated inorganic components consistent with decomp. event such as calcium, etc. we used test to non-destructively exam that carpet to look for these elements. ashton shows vass a document 11:27:50 - baez questions, begins proffer. you're not a physicist? correct. i have used lasers, i'm laser qualified. you have no knowledge of how this test was conducted? i know the procedure. it's well established. i was not present. LET'S REMOVE THE JURY. 11:29:45 - CHAPTER 9704 FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE. REFERENCES DATA AN EXPERT CAN REFERENCE. IF REASONABLY RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT OPINION EXPRESSED, THE FACTS AND DATA MAY NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. PART OF EVIDENCE CODE ALLOWS EXPERTS TO USE INFORMATION TO RENDER AN OPINION. MR BAEZ, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE WANTING TO ATTACK SOME METHODOLOGY. THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. SO TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, EXPERT WITNESSES ARE ABEL TO RELY ON REPORTS OF OTHERS IN FORMULATING THEIR OPINIONS. WHAT YOU MAY GO INTO ARE PROPER SUBJECT FOR CROSS EXAM BUT NOT DEALING WITH WHAT YOU INDICATED. YOU CAN CONTINUE PROFER SO WE CAN SEE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. 11:33:30 - the results of exam were what? showed that inorganic elements assoc with human decomp were significantly elevated from control sample. what compounds were found? calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon, iron. you don't regularly conduct libs exams? personally, know. these items are found in environ? elements found in anything known to man. i know which inorganic elements are elevated during decomp events so i can make a conlusion since all of these elements are elevated, its another corroboration what my nose tells me is correct. 11:36:00 - you could gain some knowledge from these chemicals related to your studies? yes. but that comparative anaylsis can only be done on buried bodies, bodies in bags. that;s not true, you can compare anything you want. you can compare chem output of libs to buried body to surface body? i don't think you understand what's happening here. we compared trunk of car to control samples in junk yard. you can't compare soil sample to paint chip on wall. 11:38:30 - the only comparison you did was bet. junk yard and car in this case? correct. that's the only type of testimony you can give? in terms of libs, yes. 11:39:20 - objection, overruled. I'M GOING TO ASK STATE AND DEFENSE OVER NOON RECESS READ 2010 EDITION OF EARHART, FIRST TWO FULL PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH FOUNDATION REQUIRMENT THAT MUST BE LAID BEFORE EXPERTS CAN REGURGITATE OTHER THINGS. SO WE CAN MOVE MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 11:40:30 - JURY RETURNS 11:41:45 - shown chart on screen. indicates peak showing calcium. control sample shows junk yard sample. its essentially not even present. IDs calcium sample from trunk. one of key inorganics used in post mortem evaluation. 11:43:30 - did you also perform additional analysis of carpet? we did some chemical extractions. i did that. we cut off few of fibers, put it in solvent methanol, let it sit over night. then inject small amount into cgs system. used it to detect compounds in gaseous form. what are the compounds being evaporated off that sample. what did it find? we saw presence of buteric acid. one of volatile fatty acids used for post mortem interval determination. that is the first compound liberated during human decomp. 11:45:45- that was in carpet itself, correct. 11:45:25 - when you first opened can with the carpet sample, what was your reaction? i jumped back a foot or two. i was extremely shocked that the small sample could smell that strong. it smelled like human decomp. and i've never seen that in 20 years experience. you were also given another item of scrapings from wheel well? yes. vass IDs the evidence bag. moved into evidence. 11:48:50 - acedic acid is by product of human decomp. it's also byproduct of manufaturing chloroform. shown evidence bag. opens evidence bag. 11:51:00- vass IDs more samples of paper towels, moved into evidence. APPROACH 11:54:00 - SHOTS OF EVIDENCE BAGS 11:57:00 - ashton confirms samples of evidence were sealed when vass received them. baez inspects box. conditionally received into evidence. RECESS FOR LUNCH 13:32:10 - judge talks about movies being added to movie list ...21, the proposal, 51 first dates, dirty love, blue streak. asks for objections to those titles. 13:34:30 - talked about paper towel and napkins were analyzed using a chemical extraction with methanol. did you run thru cgs? correc. what were the results? the reason that done was because it revealed there were a number of fatty acids present on paper towels. they included oleac acid, stearic acid, palmetto acid. those particular acids make up gray wax ...byproduct of breakdown of fat. associate with decomp? yes. 13:36:30 - purpose of air smaples in garage? we wnated to cinform that the carept sample was point source of the odor. got air sampple from garbage in trunk? yes. was carpet ooint source? that is correct, confirmed that the carpet was the point sounce of the odor. we're looking at a comb of chem compounds. all other compoenents, trash, garage area, contained few compounds of relevance. found in high abundance in carpet samples. those compounds found in trash? no. garage? no 13:38:20 - what is sig of compounds found in carpet sample? odor analysis, each of those odors, is comprised of a number of chemcials. it's concentration and combination that makes those unique. these chem aren't unique in nature. rose may have 10, trash may have 20 chemicals. there's going to be small interaction bet. chemicals in rose and trash. it's chemicals present in each source that makes it unique. in the car trunk sample, we ID 51 ind. compounds. 41 were related to human decomp based on studies we've done over last several years. 13:40:45 - some overlappled gasoline. we eliminated those to avoid confusion. that left 24 compounds. of those we started looking at control samples. eliminated those found in control from junk yard, garage air, pizza box. that left approx 16 compounds. of those 16, seven are considered significant. in the 2008 paper that we published, we listed 30 compounds relevant and significant to human decomp. 13:42:40 - in the trunk of the car we found 13 from that list. we had to eliminate some due to overlap with gasoline. that left us seven. these 30 compounds, are those all appear at same stage of decomp? no, it's a study that comprised relevant compounds across different stages of decomp. (paraphrasing this here - goes on quite a bit about different cycles) 13:44:50 - it's highly unlikely at one time point in decomp you'd find all those present. eleminating gas and control samples, had 7 left. those were found to be in list of 30 compounds we think are most relevant. is there specific chem odor sig for human decomp? i do not think so. based on that eval of odor itself, any opinion about source of odor from car? i consider it consistent with human decomp. you examined scrapings from tire well, how does that fit in? the acedic acid is a product of human decomp. it's not one of most sig on list of 30. the exam of the spare tire cover? all the compounds, inorganic one would expect to see elevated in human decomp event were elevated. 13:47:40 - carpet of spare tire cover? buteric acid we don't see a lot of environmental samples and again is very consistent with a decomp event. you don't see it that often. the paper towels? the fatty tissue essentially includes all the fatty acids we identified on the towels. is it human? i don't think that alone can differentiate it. didn't delve deeply into the analysis. 13:49:55 - based on all of your tests, do you have an opinion about whether there was a decomposing body in the trunk of that car? i can find no other plausible explanation to explain all the results we found. CROSS EXAM 13:51:00 - you're not chemist? correct. biochemist? no. on your CV you put down BS in biology, MS in administration of justice. what is phd? anthropology. your report in this case is forensic? yes. you have two co-authors? correct, dr. martin, physicist and mark wise, chemist,under your name you put research scientist? correct. not anthropologist? correct. you'd refer to dr. wise on chemistry issues? we consult yes. when was last time you took course in chemistry? during my clinical pathologies degree, in the 1980s perhaps. have you held yourself as a chemist? no. 13:54:00 - have you read facebook account ....sustained. have you ever posted a facebook account? i have never posted facebook account on anything. wikipedia? i have never submitted anything to wikipedia. are you aware that one has been posted that .... sustained ....you have financial interest in your testimony? not in my opinion 13:55:30 - the publications is what i use to render opinions. the data base was used to present the data included in publications. how many chem compounds have you developed that comprise of this data base? 478, something like that.what you did with this research for 2004 paper, you buried 4 bodies? correct. and you set up contraptions? yes. allowed us to check soil column, reading at surface, etc. it took 17 days for the chemicals that are generated at body to migrate up soil column to the surface. chemicals are being generated at body interface before then. 13:58:00- this data base you haven't turned over to the defense? SIDEBAR. 14:00:10 - it's not mine to turn over. it's part of grant you were given? it's a deliverable for that organization that paid for that research. and that has not been turned over to defense? i don't know. i thought it was we had depo other day on data base. we've discussed you've used this data base and you turned it over to people who gave you grant? correct. part of what you do is you have to apply for and get grants? yes. you work for research lab? correct. different than forensic lab? yes. part of your job is to bring in sufficient money? yes. part of what you're doing is you hold patent for a device called the labrador? incorrect. inventor of it? listed as inventor on patent disclosure. 14:02:30 - what your goal is with this labrador is sell these units, hand held devices? correct. goal is to sell to police depts across country? in my position at lab we are required to disclose inventions. the end product was an instrument to aid and augment cadaver dogs. because of that project an invention was developed. we correctly filed an invention disclosure based on that instrument. it's labs decision to file patent on that. it's not my decision. 14:04:00- goal is to sell this to police across country? no my goal isn't to sell these at all, my goal is creat a tech tool that police could use in locating clandestine graves. before device can be built, you have to have validation of that data base in court of law? sustained, next quesiont. you get royalties if this device is sold? i honestly don't understand the tech transfer process. if licensee comes in there's a royalty fee associated with that. it's insignificant. 14:06:10 - you get 15 percent of royalties? split between inventors, correct. when you billed out for work, you billed to labrador project, same funding source? no, this was done voluntarily on my own time. this labrador, when you applied for this patent in 2006? that was the first patent disclosure on a prototype that did not end up being the final product. APPROACH 14:12:00 - when publish articles you have to have financial disclosure? i dont think thats true. that's true for certain journals, not all. when you filed report in this case, did you disclose financial interest? vass doesn't understand question. in report in this case, you disclosed financial interest in data base? in report to detective no i did not disclose that. difference bet. research lab and forensic lab is research lab does experiments? 14:13:45 - for the work you did in this case, there are no protocols? in this case the protocols are published in 2008 article. different than what you did in this case? i don't think so. you're asking about procedure, we used the same procedures in 2008 and this case. there is nothing in writing that tells you what procedure you must do when? all you have to look at methods section in peer reviewed paper. the publications you studied have to do with buried remains? buried remains were part of 2004 study. 2008 study looked at surface remains. you don't have quality control at research lab? what do you mean .... you run blanks, standards, that's all part of quality control. 14:16:10 - anything in writing that proper steps were taken to avoid contamination? what type are you referring to ...are you saying instrument contaminated or sample ...either one? i think in bench notes dr. wise wrote he said blanks run, machines calibrated. in this case, you did what was called a qualitative analysis? correct. that means you're Identifying chemicals? correct. as opposed to quantitative telling you how much? yes. 14:18:10 - the research that you testified to was qualitative? correct, we were looking to see if compounds present, plus or minus and rough idea of abundance. you issued report in august as premliminary? yes, i typically do that. it's not your final conclusions? correct. 14:19:30 - APPROACH ? 14:25:30 - within days it became public did it not? i don't know. you were aware this info was released to public? i was made aware, but i didn't do it. do you recall email with csi vincent? i was upset by media attention, yes. it's your understanding your conclusions were being discussed without you finishing work? yes. i was not pleased with it. motion to strike granted. 14:27:30 - how many chemicals did you say you found from carpet sample? i don't have report in front of me, i think 54 was number at that time. in second report did you list? do not recall. shows him report. 14:29:30 - in report two, you had 51? correct. but this was same report? yes, but we realized there was some overlap with gasoline. as we went thru those chemicals, we eliminated duplications missed in prelim report. on report 1, you found 43 consistent with decomp.? yes, that would make sense. when you found 51 in second one, you found 41 consistent with decomp event? correct. you found on first report, 19 of these overlapped? ok. in second report, 17 overlapped with gasoline? ok. 14:31:40 - came up with same percentage? i do not recall. it's possible yes. again conclusions in final report were not based on these numbers. again, i have to literally go thru every chemical to see if we used duplicate name. the final report is most accurate. in second report you went to junk yard and got three pontiac sunfires? yes, it was corrected to two in final report. we intentionally chose worst possible urban contaminated area. we considered new carpet to be unfair comparison. in report you put three? yes i think that error came from the fact we took two samples from one car. you take notes? sometimes i do sometimes i do not. have you reveiwed bench notes in this case? you mean ones dr. wise made in his analysis ... both he and you? i did not review those no. 14:34:45 - aware there were three cars selected? two cars ...results of that third sample? sustained. you don't know history of these cars at junk yard? correct. and dont know history of car in FL? correct. you're doing comparative analysis of junk yard and FL car? correct. one of the two cars had chloroform in trunk? trace amounts, correct. what you did was qualitative analysis? correct, but we did get rough idea of the difference. you've never done studies on carpet? no. you don't know chemical breakdowns of rose? no, just using that as example. 14:37:40 - you were given list of items found in trash? correct. you didn't see them? correct. you don't know chemical breakdown of each item? what i recall are empty plastic containers. don't have list in front of me. we sampled air of composition of all of these. taken in august 2008? i don't recall actual date. 14:39:10 - august 30, 2008, air sample was taken then? i would agree. this was not taken on july 15, 2008? no, you just said it wasn't. you know that air is a free flowing environment? absolutely. that chemical composition can change moment to moment? absolutely. and you did comparisons a month later? yes. you don't know what was done to garbage from july 15-august 30? i do not. you did table in final report? yes. it was complicated. you used these samples to reach these conclusions? that is correct. looks at table. 14:41:20 - you used air sample of trash found in vehicle? correct. you used air sample from passenger area of car? correct. air samples from garage? ok. air sample from garage? correct. air sample from inside the trash? yes.but you did not use air sample from trunk of car? in my table no but I mentioned it in the report. didn't use it because it was taken after it was removed. you used everything else but air from trunk of car? yes, but you have to understand when you collect a triplesorbent trap, that converts to 30-40 liters of air collected. that was compared to 10 mls of air off trunk liner and if you look at the table it indicates that without a doubt the point source of the odor was the trunk. air in trunk was not a valid comparison after the trunk liner was removed. 14:45:40 - you found 7 of the 34 compounds? yes because of trace levels we considered five, we were very very conservative. there were overlaps that broke it down to three? in most cases there were trace amounts. there were three that did not overlap from list of 30? i don't agree, you have to look at chemical composition of each sample. 14:47:30 - 3 chemicals out of 30 you consider significant in human decomposition? that's an unfair statement. there's a process called diffusion. if the trash was in the car and trunk liner was eminating high concentrations, small amt of material could get on trash. when we collected 30 odd liters and found it we reported it. i'd go with eight but in conclusions we went with 5 14:48:50 - out of what we have here, excluding overlap, baez is off mic ........can't HEAR him. 14:49:50 - you cannot account for it but you can make a conclusion based on diffusion? assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions, yes, commom sense included. now i'd like to talk about laser tests. you are not a physicist? correct. the compounds that came up? it was calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon and iron. these are found in numerous items in the environment? absolutely. and they're found in common trash? i don't know that. i haven't done inorganic analysis of common trash. this car from junk yard, the levels are much lower than the one in fl? correct. you don't know how long car was in junk yard? no. 14:52:50 - you compared only 2 cars to the car in FL, which you have no history of? yes, we considered worst case scenario in urban junk yard you'd have all these things that could contaminate. you did not collect those samples? no. in most cases trunk lid was unlocked. AFTERNOON RECESS. 15:12:10 - jury returns 15:13:30 - you knew he trunk was sprayed with bluestar? yes. used to detect blood? yes. 15:14:50 - baez looks thru notes. now consults with his attorneys 15:16:10 - the spraying of carpet sample with bluestar was never done? it wasn't in trunk of the car apparently. someone went to a website and printed out the ingredients? material safety data sheets. yes. nothing further done? no when a chemist looked at the sheets and said those chemicals couldn't have contributed. you knew trunk was sprayed with febreze? yes. you didn't know effects those chemicals would have with those in trunk of car? no. 15:18:10 - baez writes down chemicals on white board. calcium, sodium, magnesium, iron, carbon. how many of these would you guess if you picked up a piece of soil from ground? small amounts of any of those might be present. 15:20:10 - the paper towels had different fatty acids? correct. these included palmetic acid, stearic acid, oleic and myristic? correct. 15:22:15- you said in report these are fatty acids that are like some word i can't understand. (attafacere?) is found in marshes? yes. 15:23:40 - on the paper towel found in the trash, you could find these items in a hamburger? i don't know if that's true. it would have to raw with huge percentage of fat on it. in chicken? i don't know. you have never studied whether you can find this in meat products? the formation of attapocea is favored by a number of issues. one is an anaeroboric environment, one is temp and one is moisture level. those things need to be in conjunction for attopocea to form. can these be found in meat products? i would think in mammals that would be tru. 15:26:30 - found small amounts of thc? yes, byproducts of marijuana. is it still your testimony the samples are from someone with attopocea or the munchies? the meat would have to be raw, loaded with bacteria, have anaerobic conditions it would have to be done with bag over your head and with sig amount of material. 15:27:40 - how did marijuana get there, byproduct of decomp? no we wanted to be as thorough as possible. these protocols, is this the only times you've used this data base is in two cases? you'll have to qualify. did you find hidden graves in barker ranch in CA ....APPROACH, SIDEBAR Jury dismissed. 15:38:30 - baez proceeds with proffer. in 2008, you were asked to analyze soil samples for barker ranch correct? yes. you were sent soil samples? correct. analyzed using gcs? yes. consistent with decomp. event? yes. you then went to trip to actual site? correct. you used instruments in areas IDed by cadaver dogs? correct. a magnetometer was utilized and ground penetrating radar. and excavation ensued? and exploratory excavation. at depth we dug we didn't find anything. but at point we were digging, we hit depth that was surface of site. bodies had been there 40-50 years. conclusion was that this science was in infancy? my statement was we didn't understand environmental factors but science is well established. did you make that statement to member of media that science is in infancy? sustained. the only time you have used this specific science to find a body was barker ranch? no. when you were not successful, what are you error rates for coming up with bodies using cgs? error rates are associated with a measurement. you cannot use that in this case. in 2007-08 time frame, as i explained further, we did not understand environmental parameters involved in this search. 15:43:31 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, NOW HE COMES BACK 15:44:110 - did you give statement to AP that we're trying to improve science? i cannot verify i said that. i don't know what inital question may have been, could be taken out of context, may be refering to environmental conditions. REDIRECT FOR PROFFER 15:45:15 - limitation in depth you could dig, why? time constraints. it was exploratory dig, not full investigation. no one knows if there is a body there? that is a fair statement. BARKER RANCH IS A RANCH WHERE MURDERED AND BURIED SOME PEOPLE. THESE MURDERS OCCURRED 40-50 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE AT ALL. THE QUESTION DEALING WITH BARKER RANCH, OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CROSS CONTAMINATION IN TRUNK VS ALLEGED ODOR OF DECOMP YOU CAN. BUT THE BARKER RANCH HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE. CONDITIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWED THEY HAVE SOME BEARING OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS CASE. 15:47:50 - jury returns, cross exam continues 15:49:10 - asks about protocols related to marijuana. would include proper selection of samples? it could yes. you would have protocols that tell people to avoid storing in areas with gasoline? that's true. you have told people to not contaminate these areas near gasoline? common sense, yes. this area was near gasoline? yes, that's where evidence was. another protocol is that collection be free of trash debris that could result in false positive ...those are your protocols? yes but you can't take that out of context. from what i recall we wrote those in response to an investigator who wanted to collect environmental samples in large open field area. you don't want to collect control sample in pile of trash. you have to take that statement into context. 15:52:10 - again, if i remember correctly we were collecting outdoor soil samples in very large and question came up to collect control sample. because you don't want them collecting these samples near trash? it wouldn't make sense in 40 acre field. cuz they could create false positives? true unless it's part of a crime scene, which is what you need to collect evidence. 15:53:20 - SIDEBAR 16:02:40 - you talked about ability to find clandestine graves? sustained. do you know what divining rods are? yes. they are antennae used to locate properties of specific materials. can it be made from coat hanger? yes. have you taught on this subject? yes, it's a hobby like stamp collecting and it's a wonderful way to teach science. MOVE ON MR BAEZ GET TO THE POINT. 16:04:10 - you have attempted to put electronic leashes on flies? sustained. the testimony you have given today is first time you've given this testimony in court of law? correct. not admitted in any court in country? i wouldn't know that. i don't know if anyone else has data base perhaps, i don't know that. your findings are not generally accepted in scientific community. sustained STRUCK FROM RECORD. any papers that have same findings as you? there is a paper by dr. stephanapolis that looked at whole bodies and he id'ed four chemicals we used in this case. he did not find chloroform. mr stepha is located in greece? correct. in entire world, the only person you think agrees with your finding is ....sustained. the only other study you find is a person in greece? i think he's the only one who have used entire bodies. others have used pieces of tissue. he used other data base? yes, he looked at single time point. we did a 5 year study. 16:07:30 - the smell of human decomp is unique? to me it is, yes. he asked you what your opinion was and you said smell is unique? yes. recall statement to knoxville news human decomp smells like a potato gone bad? i believe i made that statement yes. we actually looked at decomposing potato and chemical composition is completely different. one of key markers of decomp is flouride is one of chemical signatures? a halogenated flouride compound yes. in this case you didn't find flouride? no, not in positive control either. 16:09:50 - the positive control was a blanket from body of a child in trunk of car for three months? correct. don't know circumstances on recovery, storage? correct. nevertheless we saw the primary sulfer compounds and point of control was to show compounds found in fl trunk could be found in a trunk. you're twisting things around a tad. we're looking at 30 compounds. it leaves 10 compounds of 30 that were relevant, we found 8 in trunk of the car. 16:12:00 - we did chemical analysis, we know makeup. don't know history, no. you have no idea what was in the trunk of this car in the 10 years it was in existence? no i do not. you have no idea of what chemical makeup of any of the junk yard samples? no, we analyzed and know what gasses are liberated. the child in montana case was wrapped in blanket, that was stained, thank goodness we don't find many children in cars. 16:13:45 - this is the first time you've conducted experiment on carpet sample? wonderful thing about forensic science is every sample is unique. correct. 16:15:10 - you are not member of american academy of forensic science? no, not currently. you're not a member of the american board of anthropology? no. not member of any professional organization? no my background is so diverse i wouldn't know which one to join. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS REDIRECT; 16:16:30 - which governs your career more, scientific curiousity or financial benefit? scientific scientist, i'm very curious. last 10 years of career has focused on biochemistry. do you have financial interest in this case? not at all. do you recall depo with mr baez ...inquisition you mean. ...you were asked questions about patent and royalty issue. did you have to refer to someone else to get answers? yes, i had no clue about procedures. didn't know how it worked, it never interested me. 16:18:10 - in seeking control sample of carpet, did you try to find most contaminated carpet? yes. was getting sample part of reason you went to junk yard? absolutely. you talked about diffusion. explain? it is a process where chemicals go from higher to lower concentrations. is that significant in finding point source in this case? yes. what was that item? spare tire cover carpet sample. 16:19:55 - you were asked about bluestar and febreze. you looked up material safety data sheet on those? yes. it is a source of info relied upon in your field? before we use any chemical in national lab we must consult with msds. did either chemical contain chloroform? no. 16:20:55 - fatty acids in paper towels, you said it could come from meat? it would have to be raw, uncooked, high amount of fat, from a mammal, sufficient size to create stain in trunk. have to decompose in anaerobic environ, temp would have to be correct. have to have pounds of hamburger, wrapped up in bag, left to rot with bacteria found in human body? it may cause it. could it be caused by someone eating hamburger and wiping face? no. have seen evidence of pieces of hamburger? no. 16:22:55 - asked about greek study, did he find compounds among 478 you had found? i don't recall, i know there was quite a bit of overlap. the positive control you used, describe? since we had never studied a human decomposing in trunk before, we looked for a person decomposing in trunk. it's unfortunate but we were to find another case in montana where 4 year old died, wrapped in blanket and left in car for 3 months. point of control was to confirm compounds we found in florida trunk could be formed in that type of environment. how did test on carpet in this case compare? 4 of the 5 compounds were present, except chloroform. 16:25:30 - absence of flouride compounds, did you test control for them? if they had been present we would have IDed them. were they present? no. why? adults we've studied over years produce a number of flourinated compounds. it is assumed that flourine is these compounds accumulate in body thru bio accumulation. like eating lead paint chips. over time what you do is if you drink flourinated water over your lifetime, you will bioaccumulate flourine in bone tissue. upon death, bacteria convert to flourinated compounds. 16:27:40 - in a small child, it is assumed child - enough time has not passed to begin bioaccumulating in the body. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECROSS 16:28:40 - you addressed issue of flouride in report? i did yes. not studied in children. you're willing to testify that the reason you didn't find flouride is because she's a child and she didn't drink enough water? bioaccumulation is a well known phenomonon in animal kingdom. that is my opinion that that has happened. based on something never been studied? not studied but found in well known phenomenon called bioaccumulation. 16:30:20 - paper towels found in trash bag? i believe that's what i was told. the reason we did that is because dr. haskell sent me those paper towels. on those he IDes fly pupil casings. withdraws question. 16:31:30 - you have no first hand knowledge that those paper towels have anything to do with that stain? i do not. if it's found in conjunction with evidence in that car i don't see why it's not relevant. 16:32:30 - you don't know if the paper towel was used to clean up meat or counter? there was no meat residue on towel we extracted. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECESS AT 16:36:00 DUE TO FACT THAT NEXT WITNESS WILL TAKE MORE THAN 25 MINUTES FOR DIRECT. NEW LIST OF MOVIES SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN APPROVED. JURY DISMISSED FOR THE DAY. 16:37:59- ashton: defense has served him with interstate subpeona for data base, state wants to quash the subpeona. 16:40:00 baez says he'll withdraw the subpeona. ashton off mic asks another question. can't hear it. baez says he would call dr. vass in case, subject to recall.
Dog's Face
Chroma key MCU of small dog's face with billowing green BG.
Asteroid rotating, chroma key animation
Animation of an asteroid in a tumbling rotation. Asteroids are small rocky bodies formed early in the history of the solar system. This clip is supplied on a green background for chroma key compositing.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / SWITCHED P3
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL 9:00:10 - baez raises objections about dr voss and his database. says there's no way to confirm any of his testimony. his opinions aren't in conformity with his research. baez he's asking people to trust him on what his research contains. baez wants him to turn over his research so defense can verify. 9:02:30 - jury returns. 9:03:45 - DR. ARPAD VASS CALLED TO STAND 9:04:15 - sr. research scientist at oak ridge lab in TN. been there 20 years. specializes in anthropology, biology, pathology. MS in forensic science. Phd Tennensee in anthropology. also worked as medical technologist. 9:06:30 - talks about his academic history, the "body farm", and how his Phd topic on forensic anthropology came about. was interested in post mortem issues. his dissertation was on biochemical parameters assoc. with human decomposition. 9:09:00 - talks about the (body farm) anthropological research facility. been there 20 years. was only place to study whole body decompositional events. outdoor faclity. began in 1972. at this time, there have been 11-hundred test subjects that have gone thru the facility. bodies left outside under various conditions. 9:10:45 - initial research was looking at chemical breakdown of soft tissue. we analyzed bodily fluids to deterimine what components could indicate how long someone has been dead. goes on to describe four stages of decomposition, a fresh stage, bloat stage, decay and dry. 9:12:30 - talks about early stage of decomposition. if someone dies suddenly, cells don't realize organism as dead and cells continue to metabolize. baez objects. overruled. one of the by products in carbon dioxide. normally it's released thru circulation. but since there's no more circulation, it builds up in cells in body. baez objects, overruled. 9:14:55 - talks about cells, and construct of cells. lysosomes, surrounded by membranes. baez objects, overruled. talks about nutrient rich fluids. this allows second process of decomp. to begin. 9:17:50 - talks about second stage of decomp. where body is liquified, broken down into smaller molecules and dissolution of soft tissue. 9:18:50 - talks about bloat stage. generates gas, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. baez objects, overruled. 9:20:25 - gases have no place to escape, builds up in abdominal region giving appearance of bloat. final stage of decomp is active decay. the major 40-80 percent of decomp. process. all the major liquification of soft tissue occurs. leads to final stage is the dry, skeletonized stage. 9:22:20 - four processes that are important in the rate of decomp. temperature is most important, second is presence of water. third is Ph, acidic level. fourth component is oxygen. 9:24:10 - higher temp. accelerates decomp. what were you looking at in initial study of post mortem interval? we were looking at liquification process. was anything in that liquid important in determining intervals. we found that fat and muscle breaks down into volatile fatty acids. 9:26:30 - talks about inorganic material. found a variety of inorganic components could be used to determine how long someone's been dead. as soft tissue goes away, inorganics become more important. inorganics are calcium, magnesium, etc. published article in 1992 on fatty acids. 9:28:15 - during volatile fatty acid paper, employed at university. awarded Phd based on that work in 1991. went to work for oak ridge in 1992. the department of energy runs a number of labs across country, oak ridge is one of them. has 4-5 thousand employees, number of key areas of research. complicated, requires large teams. 9:31:20 - we have to have expertise in a variety of fields, i may not have a phd in that field but i have to know more than the average person. talks about expertise in microbiology. most projects are multi disciplinary. after the third model we developed based on how tissue breaks down in very early decomp stages, i reached the limit of my knowledge and wanted to research other aspects. that happened in 2001. 9:33:40 - i like challenges. up to that point, i thought time since death was most difficult question a forensic anthropologist could answer. i was wrong. i moved into the detection of clandestine graves, especially if graves are several years old. 9:35:40 - what method did you use to find clandestine graves? we looked at odor evolutions for decomp events. to do that we used the body farm. we buried a number of individuals. we put in a pipe systems above and below bodies and we began monitoring which chemicals are being produced during decomp. we looked at which of compounds made it all the way up to soil column and escaped at the surface. those would be detected by cadaver dogs. 9:37:40 - in initial 10 years of working in forensic anthro, smell decomposing remains at various stages? followed approx 50 individuals from start to finish. fresh when they came in, ended up skeletons. looked at hundreds of individuals at single time points. is odor of human decomp unique? yes. there are publications that describe what chemical components are. 9:39:50 - have you had experience of doing work with animal decomp and the odor? yes, at the facility the animals include pigs. we have deer, dogs, cats we have sampled over the years. is odor of human decomp distinguishable from those other things? i think yes. animals tend to have a more muskier scent, domesticated animals have sweeter scent. 9:41:30 - study using buried bodies began in 2002 and it ended early 2007. published a study in journal of forensic science in 2004. looked at environmental factors. object, sidebar 9:44:15 - APPROACH 9:54:30 - the study with varying individuals continued but at that point we looked at individuals decomping on surface. your work with above ground bodies took place at the body farm. looked at 10 surface individuals. some lying on surface, some lying with tarps on tops, some encased in body bags. 9:56:45 - in piping system there are ports and end of each pipe. we collected air containing the odor on a triple-sorbent pad. piece of metal has three types of this activated carbon in it. it captures odor components on activated carbon and you take that back to lab to analyze. for surface bodies, we dangled air trap close to body, put under tarp or in body bag. the tube is then removed, ends are sealed, and anaylze at lab. you heat the metal tube and as tube heats up the activated carbon releases odor compounds, and those are captured. 9:59:30 - odor molecules are frozen and condensed into tiny pellets. can you detect even minute compounds? that's the point of cryo-focusing yes. there were used in both buried and above ground remains. 10:00:45- above ground remains studied for 2-3 years. in initial stages of decomp, we took samples weekly, then bi-weekly, to monthly as body became skeletonized. surface individuals we did weekly. did you update findings in 2004 paper? yes, new findings were in 2008 paper. state submits dr. vass as expert witness. objection, judge allows him as expert witness. 10:02:20 - vass was contacted by yuri melich in 2008. did you have discussion about what they had? i believe so. did they send you some items of evidence to exam? yes. approaches witness. vass was sent metal evidence can first. shown box. ashton opens box. vass takes evidence out of box and IDs it. 10:06:30 - another SIDEBAR 10:10:20 - metal can received into evidence. ashton shows him plastic bag with air sample from trunk. dr. marcus wise analyzed the sample. not sure how sample was collected. not by normal procedure. don't recall results. did you ask orange co. sheriffs to take air samples? i did i sent them an air pump, used to collect air samples thru triple-sorbent traps. are they same devices you used in your studies? the traps, yes. this pump was portable. we use a plug in one at facility. 10:13:10 - did you get back the tubes from various locations relevant to this case? yes, correct. ashton shows him items, evidence. 10:15:30 - items moved into evidence. RECESS 10:44:15 - in actual analysis of items you were sent, assisted with other members? correct. dr. marcus wise, analytical chemist. the lab used to analyze these samples is his lab. he has to make sure instruments are working properly. what was used to analyze the odors? a gas chromatograph spectrometer. 10:46:30 - talks about how evidence in can was analyzed. the can lid was cracked, a syringe was inserted and a sample was removed and injected into gas chroma spect. dr. wise did test. baez objects, overruled. 10:48:40 - what were results of that inital test? SIDEBAR 10:49:50 - SHOT OF GEORGE AND CINDY IN COURTROOM 11:00:30 - did you go over chromatogram of initial results yes, it showed one large peak and a large number of small peaks. the large peak was choloform. is chloroform a compound you've dealt with in research? yes, it's a decomp. event product. what was next step? the reason we progessed is because the cholor was shockingly high, unusually high. because of that, and because of small peaks, we decided to concentrate air sample to ge tbetter representation. did you use same technique of cryo tracking?> yes. you were with dr. wise in room when it was done? yes. the analysis. we actually removed the piece of carpet from metal can. 11:03:00 - we weren't sure if air in can represented what was coming off carpet. put carpet sample in plastic bag, and incubated it for 2 days at 35 celsius ...body temp. what is purpose of incubating? because sample came from trunk of car in florida, we anticipated trunk temp to be warm pluse as you incubate this it speeds of evolution of these compounds. purpose was to get substance released in air? yes, we wanted to determine absolutely what compounds were being liberated from carpet exclusively. how do you take sample from bag? from that bag we extract 10 ml of air and did gcs anaylsis. 11:06:15 - what were the results? object, overuled. we were able to ID 51 individual chemical components. chloroform was one of those. large peaks, tall peaks indicated a concentrated amount. the largest peak was chloroform. did the amount you found surprise you? we were shocked. we've never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples in 20 years. it can be byproduct of decomp? yes, we have seen it in parts per trillion. did you quantify the amount of cholorform in air sample? we made a rough approximation. 11:09:10 - rough approximation was parts per million. did you try to do a more precise measure? no we did not. further quantification wouldn't have been helpful. chloroform has high rate of evaporation. let's say it appeared in trunk of car at some time in the past. over time it's evaporated. at that point when it was collected after all this evaporation took place we were still at parts per million range. 11:11:20 - did you obtain and test piece of carpet from similar vehicle? yes we did. we tested it. ahston shows him document. admitted into evidence. published to jury 11:13:30 - vass talks about top graph, chromatogram of actual test. circles it on screen, the chlorofom peak. numbers off to left are rough approx of how much material is present. the top number is 16 million. this is sample from carpet from car in this case. does this show other peaks. says there are a number of them, circles another region, that represents variety of compounds associated with gasoline. 11:16:10- overlapping compounds bet. gas and odor of human decomp? yes. vass looks at second chart. it's chromatogram of sample from car from junkyard in knoxville, tn. car of similar make. this does show peak for chloroform, cirlces it on the screen in red. 11:18:45 - what level of chloro found in control carpet? peak height is no more than 5 thousand. compared to 16 million in trunk. 11:20:30 - that cholo level in control sample is typical in environmental samples....we consider it trace amounts. after completing the evaluation, did you do additional test on carpet? we used laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. searched for inorganic material. 11:23:10 - what does the laser actually do? it's directed on to carpet. when the laser hits the sample it creates and excited state. a lot of heat is generated. when laser is shut off, electrons fall down to unexcited state. as the electrons fall to ground state, they emit energy as a photon of light. that light is picked up to spectrometer, which can detect it. every element produces a certain characteristic. 11:25:30 - used on carpet sample. utilize those results in final opinion? i did. what is signficance of results of that exam? we were looking for elevated inorganic components consistent with decomp. event such as calcium, etc. we used test to non-destructively exam that carpet to look for these elements. ashton shows vass a document 11:27:50 - baez questions, begins proffer. you're not a physicist? correct. i have used lasers, i'm laser qualified. you have no knowledge of how this test was conducted? i know the procedure. it's well established. i was not present. LET'S REMOVE THE JURY. 11:29:45 - CHAPTER 9704 FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE. REFERENCES DATA AN EXPERT CAN REFERENCE. IF REASONABLY RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT OPINION EXPRESSED, THE FACTS AND DATA MAY NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. PART OF EVIDENCE CODE ALLOWS EXPERTS TO USE INFORMATION TO RENDER AN OPINION. MR BAEZ, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE WANTING TO ATTACK SOME METHODOLOGY. THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. SO TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, EXPERT WITNESSES ARE ABEL TO RELY ON REPORTS OF OTHERS IN FORMULATING THEIR OPINIONS. WHAT YOU MAY GO INTO ARE PROPER SUBJECT FOR CROSS EXAM BUT NOT DEALING WITH WHAT YOU INDICATED. YOU CAN CONTINUE PROFER SO WE CAN SEE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. 11:33:30 - the results of exam were what? showed that inorganic elements assoc with human decomp were significantly elevated from control sample. what compounds were found? calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon, iron. you don't regularly conduct libs exams? personally, know. these items are found in environ? elements found in anything known to man. i know which inorganic elements are elevated during decomp events so i can make a conlusion since all of these elements are elevated, its another corroboration what my nose tells me is correct. 11:36:00 - you could gain some knowledge from these chemicals related to your studies? yes. but that comparative anaylsis can only be done on buried bodies, bodies in bags. that;s not true, you can compare anything you want. you can compare chem output of libs to buried body to surface body? i don't think you understand what's happening here. we compared trunk of car to control samples in junk yard. you can't compare soil sample to paint chip on wall. 11:38:30 - the only comparison you did was bet. junk yard and car in this case? correct. that's the only type of testimony you can give? in terms of libs, yes. 11:39:20 - objection, overruled. I'M GOING TO ASK STATE AND DEFENSE OVER NOON RECESS READ 2010 EDITION OF EARHART, FIRST TWO FULL PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH FOUNDATION REQUIRMENT THAT MUST BE LAID BEFORE EXPERTS CAN REGURGITATE OTHER THINGS. SO WE CAN MOVE MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 11:40:30 - JURY RETURNS 11:41:45 - shown chart on screen. indicates peak showing calcium. control sample shows junk yard sample. its essentially not even present. IDs calcium sample from trunk. one of key inorganics used in post mortem evaluation. 11:43:30 - did you also perform additional analysis of carpet? we did some chemical extractions. i did that. we cut off few of fibers, put it in solvent methanol, let it sit over night. then inject small amount into cgs system. used it to detect compounds in gaseous form. what are the compounds being evaporated off that sample. what did it find? we saw presence of buteric acid. one of volatile fatty acids used for post mortem interval determination. that is the first compound liberated during human decomp. 11:45:45- that was in carpet itself, correct. 11:45:25 - when you first opened can with the carpet sample, what was your reaction? i jumped back a foot or two. i was extremely shocked that the small sample could smell that strong. it smelled like human decomp. and i've never seen that in 20 years experience. you were also given another item of scrapings from wheel well? yes. vass IDs the evidence bag. moved into evidence. 11:48:50 - acedic acid is by product of human decomp. it's also byproduct of manufaturing chloroform. shown evidence bag. opens evidence bag. 11:51:00- vass IDs more samples of paper towels, moved into evidence. APPROACH 11:54:00 - SHOTS OF EVIDENCE BAGS 11:57:00 - ashton confirms samples of evidence were sealed when vass received them. baez inspects box. conditionally received into evidence. RECESS FOR LUNCH 13:32:10 - judge talks about movies being added to movie list ...21, the proposal, 51 first dates, dirty love, blue streak. asks for objections to those titles. 13:34:30 - talked about paper towel and napkins were analyzed using a chemical extraction with methanol. did you run thru cgs? correc. what were the results? the reason that done was because it revealed there were a number of fatty acids present on paper towels. they included oleac acid, stearic acid, palmetto acid. those particular acids make up gray wax ...byproduct of breakdown of fat. associate with decomp? yes. 13:36:30 - purpose of air smaples in garage? we wnated to cinform that the carept sample was point source of the odor. got air sampple from garbage in trunk? yes. was carpet ooint source? that is correct, confirmed that the carpet was the point sounce of the odor. we're looking at a comb of chem compounds. all other compoenents, trash, garage area, contained few compounds of relevance. found in high abundance in carpet samples. those compounds found in trash? no. garage? no 13:38:20 - what is sig of compounds found in carpet sample? odor analysis, each of those odors, is comprised of a number of chemcials. it's concentration and combination that makes those unique. these chem aren't unique in nature. rose may have 10, trash may have 20 chemicals. there's going to be small interaction bet. chemicals in rose and trash. it's chemicals present in each source that makes it unique. in the car trunk sample, we ID 51 ind. compounds. 41 were related to human decomp based on studies we've done over last several years. 13:40:45 - some overlappled gasoline. we eliminated those to avoid confusion. that left 24 compounds. of those we started looking at control samples. eliminated those found in control from junk yard, garage air, pizza box. that left approx 16 compounds. of those 16, seven are considered significant. in the 2008 paper that we published, we listed 30 compounds relevant and significant to human decomp. 13:42:40 - in the trunk of the car we found 13 from that list. we had to eliminate some due to overlap with gasoline. that left us seven. these 30 compounds, are those all appear at same stage of decomp? no, it's a study that comprised relevant compounds across different stages of decomp. (paraphrasing this here - goes on quite a bit about different cycles) 13:44:50 - it's highly unlikely at one time point in decomp you'd find all those present. eleminating gas and control samples, had 7 left. those were found to be in list of 30 compounds we think are most relevant. is there specific chem odor sig for human decomp? i do not think so. based on that eval of odor itself, any opinion about source of odor from car? i consider it consistent with human decomp. you examined scrapings from tire well, how does that fit in? the acedic acid is a product of human decomp. it's not one of most sig on list of 30. the exam of the spare tire cover? all the compounds, inorganic one would expect to see elevated in human decomp event were elevated. 13:47:40 - carpet of spare tire cover? buteric acid we don't see a lot of environmental samples and again is very consistent with a decomp event. you don't see it that often. the paper towels? the fatty tissue essentially includes all the fatty acids we identified on the towels. is it human? i don't think that alone can differentiate it. didn't delve deeply into the analysis. 13:49:55 - based on all of your tests, do you have an opinion about whether there was a decomposing body in the trunk of that car? i can find no other plausible explanation to explain all the results we found. CROSS EXAM 13:51:00 - you're not chemist? correct. biochemist? no. on your CV you put down BS in biology, MS in administration of justice. what is phd? anthropology. your report in this case is forensic? yes. you have two co-authors? correct, dr. martin, physicist and mark wise, chemist,under your name you put research scientist? correct. not anthropologist? correct. you'd refer to dr. wise on chemistry issues? we consult yes. when was last time you took course in chemistry? during my clinical pathologies degree, in the 1980s perhaps. have you held yourself as a chemist? no. 13:54:00 - have you read facebook account ....sustained. have you ever posted a facebook account? i have never posted facebook account on anything. wikipedia? i have never submitted anything to wikipedia. are you aware that one has been posted that .... sustained ....you have financial interest in your testimony? not in my opinion 13:55:30 - the publications is what i use to render opinions. the data base was used to present the data included in publications. how many chem compounds have you developed that comprise of this data base? 478, something like that.what you did with this research for 2004 paper, you buried 4 bodies? correct. and you set up contraptions? yes. allowed us to check soil column, reading at surface, etc. it took 17 days for the chemicals that are generated at body to migrate up soil column to the surface. chemicals are being generated at body interface before then. 13:58:00- this data base you haven't turned over to the defense? SIDEBAR. 14:00:10 - it's not mine to turn over. it's part of grant you were given? it's a deliverable for that organization that paid for that research. and that has not been turned over to defense? i don't know. i thought it was we had depo other day on data base. we've discussed you've used this data base and you turned it over to people who gave you grant? correct. part of what you do is you have to apply for and get grants? yes. you work for research lab? correct. different than forensic lab? yes. part of your job is to bring in sufficient money? yes. part of what you're doing is you hold patent for a device called the labrador? incorrect. inventor of it? listed as inventor on patent disclosure. 14:02:30 - what your goal is with this labrador is sell these units, hand held devices? correct. goal is to sell to police depts across country? in my position at lab we are required to disclose inventions. the end product was an instrument to aid and augment cadaver dogs. because of that project an invention was developed. we correctly filed an invention disclosure based on that instrument. it's labs decision to file patent on that. it's not my decision. 14:04:00- goal is to sell this to police across country? no my goal isn't to sell these at all, my goal is creat a tech tool that police could use in locating clandestine graves. before device can be built, you have to have validation of that data base in court of law? sustained, next quesiont. you get royalties if this device is sold? i honestly don't understand the tech transfer process. if licensee comes in there's a royalty fee associated with that. it's insignificant. 14:06:10 - you get 15 percent of royalties? split between inventors, correct. when you billed out for work, you billed to labrador project, same funding source? no, this was done voluntarily on my own time. this labrador, when you applied for this patent in 2006? that was the first patent disclosure on a prototype that did not end up being the final product. APPROACH 14:12:00 - when publish articles you have to have financial disclosure? i dont think thats true. that's true for certain journals, not all. when you filed report in this case, did you disclose financial interest? vass doesn't understand question. in report in this case, you disclosed financial interest in data base? in report to detective no i did not disclose that. difference bet. research lab and forensic lab is research lab does experiments? 14:13:45 - for the work you did in this case, there are no protocols? in this case the protocols are published in 2008 article. different than what you did in this case? i don't think so. you're asking about procedure, we used the same procedures in 2008 and this case. there is nothing in writing that tells you what procedure you must do when? all you have to look at methods section in peer reviewed paper. the publications you studied have to do with buried remains? buried remains were part of 2004 study. 2008 study looked at surface remains. you don't have quality control at research lab? what do you mean .... you run blanks, standards, that's all part of quality control. 14:16:10 - anything in writing that proper steps were taken to avoid contamination? what type are you referring to ...are you saying instrument contaminated or sample ...either one? i think in bench notes dr. wise wrote he said blanks run, machines calibrated. in this case, you did what was called a qualitative analysis? correct. that means you're Identifying chemicals? correct. as opposed to quantitative telling you how much? yes. 14:18:10 - the research that you testified to was qualitative? correct, we were looking to see if compounds present, plus or minus and rough idea of abundance. you issued report in august as premliminary? yes, i typically do that. it's not your final conclusions? correct. 14:19:30 - APPROACH ? 14:25:30 - within days it became public did it not? i don't know. you were aware this info was released to public? i was made aware, but i didn't do it. do you recall email with csi vincent? i was upset by media attention, yes. it's your understanding your conclusions were being discussed without you finishing work? yes. i was not pleased with it. motion to strike granted. 14:27:30 - how many chemicals did you say you found from carpet sample? i don't have report in front of me, i think 54 was number at that time. in second report did you list? do not recall. shows him report. 14:29:30 - in report two, you had 51? correct. but this was same report? yes, but we realized there was some overlap with gasoline. as we went thru those chemicals, we eliminated duplications missed in prelim report. on report 1, you found 43 consistent with decomp.? yes, that would make sense. when you found 51 in second one, you found 41 consistent with decomp event? correct. you found on first report, 19 of these overlapped? ok. in second report, 17 overlapped with gasoline? ok. 14:31:40 - came up with same percentage? i do not recall. it's possible yes. again conclusions in final report were not based on these numbers. again, i have to literally go thru every chemical to see if we used duplicate name. the final report is most accurate. in second report you went to junk yard and got three pontiac sunfires? yes, it was corrected to two in final report. we intentionally chose worst possible urban contaminated area. we considered new carpet to be unfair comparison. in report you put three? yes i think that error came from the fact we took two samples from one car. you take notes? sometimes i do sometimes i do not. have you reveiwed bench notes in this case? you mean ones dr. wise made in his analysis ... both he and you? i did not review those no. 14:34:45 - aware there were three cars selected? two cars ...results of that third sample? sustained. you don't know history of these cars at junk yard? correct. and dont know history of car in FL? correct. you're doing comparative analysis of junk yard and FL car? correct. one of the two cars had chloroform in trunk? trace amounts, correct. what you did was qualitative analysis? correct, but we did get rough idea of the difference. you've never done studies on carpet? no. you don't know chemical breakdowns of rose? no, just using that as example. 14:37:40 - you were given list of items found in trash? correct. you didn't see them? correct. you don't know chemical breakdown of each item? what i recall are empty plastic containers. don't have list in front of me. we sampled air of composition of all of these. taken in august 2008? i don't recall actual date. 14:39:10 - august 30, 2008, air sample was taken then? i would agree. this was not taken on july 15, 2008? no, you just said it wasn't. you know that air is a free flowing environment? absolutely. that chemical composition can change moment to moment? absolutely. and you did comparisons a month later? yes. you don't know what was done to garbage from july 15-august 30? i do not. you did table in final report? yes. it was complicated. you used these samples to reach these conclusions? that is correct. looks at table. 14:41:20 - you used air sample of trash found in vehicle? correct. you used air sample from passenger area of car? correct. air samples from garage? ok. air sample from garage? correct. air sample from inside the trash? yes.but you did not use air sample from trunk of car? in my table no but I mentioned it in the report. didn't use it because it was taken after it was removed. you used everything else but air from trunk of car? yes, but you have to understand when you collect a triplesorbent trap, that converts to 30-40 liters of air collected. that was compared to 10 mls of air off trunk liner and if you look at the table it indicates that without a doubt the point source of the odor was the trunk. air in trunk was not a valid comparison after the trunk liner was removed. 14:45:40 - you found 7 of the 34 compounds? yes because of trace levels we considered five, we were very very conservative. there were overlaps that broke it down to three? in most cases there were trace amounts. there were three that did not overlap from list of 30? i don't agree, you have to look at chemical composition of each sample. 14:47:30 - 3 chemicals out of 30 you consider significant in human decomposition? that's an unfair statement. there's a process called diffusion. if the trash was in the car and trunk liner was eminating high concentrations, small amt of material could get on trash. when we collected 30 odd liters and found it we reported it. i'd go with eight but in conclusions we went with 5 14:48:50 - out of what we have here, excluding overlap, baez is off mic ........can't HEAR him. 14:49:50 - you cannot account for it but you can make a conclusion based on diffusion? assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions, yes, commom sense included. now i'd like to talk about laser tests. you are not a physicist? correct. the compounds that came up? it was calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon and iron. these are found in numerous items in the environment? absolutely. and they're found in common trash? i don't know that. i haven't done inorganic analysis of common trash. this car from junk yard, the levels are much lower than the one in fl? correct. you don't know how long car was in junk yard? no. 14:52:50 - you compared only 2 cars to the car in FL, which you have no history of? yes, we considered worst case scenario in urban junk yard you'd have all these things that could contaminate. you did not collect those samples? no. in most cases trunk lid was unlocked. AFTERNOON RECESS. 15:12:10 - jury returns 15:13:30 - you knew he trunk was sprayed with bluestar? yes. used to detect blood? yes. 15:14:50 - baez looks thru notes. now consults with his attorneys 15:16:10 - the spraying of carpet sample with bluestar was never done? it wasn't in trunk of the car apparently. someone went to a website and printed out the ingredients? material safety data sheets. yes. nothing further done? no when a chemist looked at the sheets and said those chemicals couldn't have contributed. you knew trunk was sprayed with febreze? yes. you didn't know effects those chemicals would have with those in trunk of car? no. 15:18:10 - baez writes down chemicals on white board. calcium, sodium, magnesium, iron, carbon. how many of these would you guess if you picked up a piece of soil from ground? small amounts of any of those might be present. 15:20:10 - the paper towels had different fatty acids? correct. these included palmetic acid, stearic acid, oleic and myristic? correct. 15:22:15- you said in report these are fatty acids that are like some word i can't understand. (attafacere?) is found in marshes? yes. 15:23:40 - on the paper towel found in the trash, you could find these items in a hamburger? i don't know if that's true. it would have to raw with huge percentage of fat on it. in chicken? i don't know. you have never studied whether you can find this in meat products? the formation of attapocea is favored by a number of issues. one is an anaeroboric environment, one is temp and one is moisture level. those things need to be in conjunction for attopocea to form. can these be found in meat products? i would think in mammals that would be tru. 15:26:30 - found small amounts of thc? yes, byproducts of marijuana. is it still your testimony the samples are from someone with attopocea or the munchies? the meat would have to be raw, loaded with bacteria, have anaerobic conditions it would have to be done with bag over your head and with sig amount of material. 15:27:40 - how did marijuana get there, byproduct of decomp? no we wanted to be as thorough as possible. these protocols, is this the only times you've used this data base is in two cases? you'll have to qualify. did you find hidden graves in barker ranch in CA ....APPROACH, SIDEBAR Jury dismissed. 15:38:30 - baez proceeds with proffer. in 2008, you were asked to analyze soil samples for barker ranch correct? yes. you were sent soil samples? correct. analyzed using gcs? yes. consistent with decomp. event? yes. you then went to trip to actual site? correct. you used instruments in areas IDed by cadaver dogs? correct. a magnetometer was utilized and ground penetrating radar. and excavation ensued? and exploratory excavation. at depth we dug we didn't find anything. but at point we were digging, we hit depth that was surface of site. bodies had been there 40-50 years. conclusion was that this science was in infancy? my statement was we didn't understand environmental factors but science is well established. did you make that statement to member of media that science is in infancy? sustained. the only time you have used this specific science to find a body was barker ranch? no. when you were not successful, what are you error rates for coming up with bodies using cgs? error rates are associated with a measurement. you cannot use that in this case. in 2007-08 time frame, as i explained further, we did not understand environmental parameters involved in this search. 15:43:31 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, NOW HE COMES BACK 15:44:110 - did you give statement to AP that we're trying to improve science? i cannot verify i said that. i don't know what inital question may have been, could be taken out of context, may be refering to environmental conditions. REDIRECT FOR PROFFER 15:45:15 - limitation in depth you could dig, why? time constraints. it was exploratory dig, not full investigation. no one knows if there is a body there? that is a fair statement. BARKER RANCH IS A RANCH WHERE MURDERED AND BURIED SOME PEOPLE. THESE MURDERS OCCURRED 40-50 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE AT ALL. THE QUESTION DEALING WITH BARKER RANCH, OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CROSS CONTAMINATION IN TRUNK VS ALLEGED ODOR OF DECOMP YOU CAN. BUT THE BARKER RANCH HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE. CONDITIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWED THEY HAVE SOME BEARING OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS CASE. 15:47:50 - jury returns, cross exam continues 15:49:10 - asks about protocols related to marijuana. would include proper selection of samples? it could yes. you would have protocols that tell people to avoid storing in areas with gasoline? that's true. you have told people to not contaminate these areas near gasoline? common sense, yes. this area was near gasoline? yes, that's where evidence was. another protocol is that collection be free of trash debris that could result in false positive ...those are your protocols? yes but you can't take that out of context. from what i recall we wrote those in response to an investigator who wanted to collect environmental samples in large open field area. you don't want to collect control sample in pile of trash. you have to take that statement into context. 15:52:10 - again, if i remember correctly we were collecting outdoor soil samples in very large and question came up to collect control sample. because you don't want them collecting these samples near trash? it wouldn't make sense in 40 acre field. cuz they could create false positives? true unless it's part of a crime scene, which is what you need to collect evidence. 15:53:20 - SIDEBAR 16:02:40 - you talked about ability to find clandestine graves? sustained. do you know what divining rods are? yes. they are antennae used to locate properties of specific materials. can it be made from coat hanger? yes. have you taught on this subject? yes, it's a hobby like stamp collecting and it's a wonderful way to teach science. MOVE ON MR BAEZ GET TO THE POINT. 16:04:10 - you have attempted to put electronic leashes on flies? sustained. the testimony you have given today is first time you've given this testimony in court of law? correct. not admitted in any court in country? i wouldn't know that. i don't know if anyone else has data base perhaps, i don't know that. your findings are not generally accepted in scientific community. sustained STRUCK FROM RECORD. any papers that have same findings as you? there is a paper by dr. stephanapolis that looked at whole bodies and he id'ed four chemicals we used in this case. he did not find chloroform. mr stepha is located in greece? correct. in entire world, the only person you think agrees with your finding is ....sustained. the only other study you find is a person in greece? i think he's the only one who have used entire bodies. others have used pieces of tissue. he used other data base? yes, he looked at single time point. we did a 5 year study. 16:07:30 - the smell of human decomp is unique? to me it is, yes. he asked you what your opinion was and you said smell is unique? yes. recall statement to knoxville news human decomp smells like a potato gone bad? i believe i made that statement yes. we actually looked at decomposing potato and chemical composition is completely different. one of key markers of decomp is flouride is one of chemical signatures? a halogenated flouride compound yes. in this case you didn't find flouride? no, not in positive control either. 16:09:50 - the positive control was a blanket from body of a child in trunk of car for three months? correct. don't know circumstances on recovery, storage? correct. nevertheless we saw the primary sulfer compounds and point of control was to show compounds found in fl trunk could be found in a trunk. you're twisting things around a tad. we're looking at 30 compounds. it leaves 10 compounds of 30 that were relevant, we found 8 in trunk of the car. 16:12:00 - we did chemical analysis, we know makeup. don't know history, no. you have no idea what was in the trunk of this car in the 10 years it was in existence? no i do not. you have no idea of what chemical makeup of any of the junk yard samples? no, we analyzed and know what gasses are liberated. the child in montana case was wrapped in blanket, that was stained, thank goodness we don't find many children in cars. 16:13:45 - this is the first time you've conducted experiment on carpet sample? wonderful thing about forensic science is every sample is unique. correct. 16:15:10 - you are not member of american academy of forensic science? no, not currently. you're not a member of the american board of anthropology? no. not member of any professional organization? no my background is so diverse i wouldn't know which one to join. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS REDIRECT; 16:16:30 - which governs your career more, scientific curiousity or financial benefit? scientific scientist, i'm very curious. last 10 years of career has focused on biochemistry. do you have financial interest in this case? not at all. do you recall depo with mr baez ...inquisition you mean. ...you were asked questions about patent and royalty issue. did you have to refer to someone else to get answers? yes, i had no clue about procedures. didn't know how it worked, it never interested me. 16:18:10 - in seeking control sample of carpet, did you try to find most contaminated carpet? yes. was getting sample part of reason you went to junk yard? absolutely. you talked about diffusion. explain? it is a process where chemicals go from higher to lower concentrations. is that significant in finding point source in this case? yes. what was that item? spare tire cover carpet sample. 16:19:55 - you were asked about bluestar and febreze. you looked up material safety data sheet on those? yes. it is a source of info relied upon in your field? before we use any chemical in national lab we must consult with msds. did either chemical contain chloroform? no. 16:20:55 - fatty acids in paper towels, you said it could come from meat? it would have to be raw, uncooked, high amount of fat, from a mammal, sufficient size to create stain in trunk. have to decompose in anaerobic environ, temp would have to be correct. have to have pounds of hamburger, wrapped up in bag, left to rot with bacteria found in human body? it may cause it. could it be caused by someone eating hamburger and wiping face? no. have seen evidence of pieces of hamburger? no. 16:22:55 - asked about greek study, did he find compounds among 478 you had found? i don't recall, i know there was quite a bit of overlap. the positive control you used, describe? since we had never studied a human decomposing in trunk before, we looked for a person decomposing in trunk. it's unfortunate but we were to find another case in montana where 4 year old died, wrapped in blanket and left in car for 3 months. point of control was to confirm compounds we found in florida trunk could be formed in that type of environment. how did test on carpet in this case compare? 4 of the 5 compounds were present, except chloroform. 16:25:30 - absence of flouride compounds, did you test control for them? if they had been present we would have IDed them. were they present? no. why? adults we've studied over years produce a number of flourinated compounds. it is assumed that flourine is these compounds accumulate in body thru bio accumulation. like eating lead paint chips. over time what you do is if you drink flourinated water over your lifetime, you will bioaccumulate flourine in bone tissue. upon death, bacteria convert to flourinated compounds. 16:27:40 - in a small child, it is assumed child - enough time has not passed to begin bioaccumulating in the body. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECROSS 16:28:40 - you addressed issue of flouride in report? i did yes. not studied in children. you're willing to testify that the reason you didn't find flouride is because she's a child and she didn't drink enough water? bioaccumulation is a well known phenomonon in animal kingdom. that is my opinion that that has happened. based on something never been studied? not studied but found in well known phenomenon called bioaccumulation. 16:30:20 - paper towels found in trash bag? i believe that's what i was told. the reason we did that is because dr. haskell sent me those paper towels. on those he IDes fly pupil casings. withdraws question. 16:31:30 - you have no first hand knowledge that those paper towels have anything to do with that stain? i do not. if it's found in conjunction with evidence in that car i don't see why it's not relevant. 16:32:30 - you don't know if the paper towel was used to clean up meat or counter? there was no meat residue on towel we extracted. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECESS AT 16:36:00 DUE TO FACT THAT NEXT WITNESS WILL TAKE MORE THAN 25 MINUTES FOR DIRECT. NEW LIST OF MOVIES SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN APPROVED. JURY DISMISSED FOR THE DAY. 16:37:59- ashton: defense has served him with interstate subpeona for data base, state wants to quash the subpeona. 16:40:00 baez says he'll withdraw the subpeona. ashton off mic asks another question. can't hear it. baez says he would call dr. vass in case, subject to recall.
Green screen golfer - 1
Green screen golfer swings club.
Asteroid rotating, chroma key animation
Animation of an asteroid in a tumbling rotation. Asteroids are small rocky bodies formed early in the history of the solar system. This clip is supplied on a green background for chroma key compositing.
Green screen golfer - 2
CU green screen golfer gripping club.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / SWITCHED P4
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL 9:00:10 - baez raises objections about dr voss and his database. says there's no way to confirm any of his testimony. his opinions aren't in conformity with his research. baez he's asking people to trust him on what his research contains. baez wants him to turn over his research so defense can verify. 9:02:30 - jury returns. 9:03:45 - DR. ARPAD VASS CALLED TO STAND 9:04:15 - sr. research scientist at oak ridge lab in TN. been there 20 years. specializes in anthropology, biology, pathology. MS in forensic science. Phd Tennensee in anthropology. also worked as medical technologist. 9:06:30 - talks about his academic history, the "body farm", and how his Phd topic on forensic anthropology came about. was interested in post mortem issues. his dissertation was on biochemical parameters assoc. with human decomposition. 9:09:00 - talks about the (body farm) anthropological research facility. been there 20 years. was only place to study whole body decompositional events. outdoor faclity. began in 1972. at this time, there have been 11-hundred test subjects that have gone thru the facility. bodies left outside under various conditions. 9:10:45 - initial research was looking at chemical breakdown of soft tissue. we analyzed bodily fluids to deterimine what components could indicate how long someone has been dead. goes on to describe four stages of decomposition, a fresh stage, bloat stage, decay and dry. 9:12:30 - talks about early stage of decomposition. if someone dies suddenly, cells don't realize organism as dead and cells continue to metabolize. baez objects. overruled. one of the by products in carbon dioxide. normally it's released thru circulation. but since there's no more circulation, it builds up in cells in body. baez objects, overruled. 9:14:55 - talks about cells, and construct of cells. lysosomes, surrounded by membranes. baez objects, overruled. talks about nutrient rich fluids. this allows second process of decomp. to begin. 9:17:50 - talks about second stage of decomp. where body is liquified, broken down into smaller molecules and dissolution of soft tissue. 9:18:50 - talks about bloat stage. generates gas, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. baez objects, overruled. 9:20:25 - gases have no place to escape, builds up in abdominal region giving appearance of bloat. final stage of decomp is active decay. the major 40-80 percent of decomp. process. all the major liquification of soft tissue occurs. leads to final stage is the dry, skeletonized stage. 9:22:20 - four processes that are important in the rate of decomp. temperature is most important, second is presence of water. third is Ph, acidic level. fourth component is oxygen. 9:24:10 - higher temp. accelerates decomp. what were you looking at in initial study of post mortem interval? we were looking at liquification process. was anything in that liquid important in determining intervals. we found that fat and muscle breaks down into volatile fatty acids. 9:26:30 - talks about inorganic material. found a variety of inorganic components could be used to determine how long someone's been dead. as soft tissue goes away, inorganics become more important. inorganics are calcium, magnesium, etc. published article in 1992 on fatty acids. 9:28:15 - during volatile fatty acid paper, employed at university. awarded Phd based on that work in 1991. went to work for oak ridge in 1992. the department of energy runs a number of labs across country, oak ridge is one of them. has 4-5 thousand employees, number of key areas of research. complicated, requires large teams. 9:31:20 - we have to have expertise in a variety of fields, i may not have a phd in that field but i have to know more than the average person. talks about expertise in microbiology. most projects are multi disciplinary. after the third model we developed based on how tissue breaks down in very early decomp stages, i reached the limit of my knowledge and wanted to research other aspects. that happened in 2001. 9:33:40 - i like challenges. up to that point, i thought time since death was most difficult question a forensic anthropologist could answer. i was wrong. i moved into the detection of clandestine graves, especially if graves are several years old. 9:35:40 - what method did you use to find clandestine graves? we looked at odor evolutions for decomp events. to do that we used the body farm. we buried a number of individuals. we put in a pipe systems above and below bodies and we began monitoring which chemicals are being produced during decomp. we looked at which of compounds made it all the way up to soil column and escaped at the surface. those would be detected by cadaver dogs. 9:37:40 - in initial 10 years of working in forensic anthro, smell decomposing remains at various stages? followed approx 50 individuals from start to finish. fresh when they came in, ended up skeletons. looked at hundreds of individuals at single time points. is odor of human decomp unique? yes. there are publications that describe what chemical components are. 9:39:50 - have you had experience of doing work with animal decomp and the odor? yes, at the facility the animals include pigs. we have deer, dogs, cats we have sampled over the years. is odor of human decomp distinguishable from those other things? i think yes. animals tend to have a more muskier scent, domesticated animals have sweeter scent. 9:41:30 - study using buried bodies began in 2002 and it ended early 2007. published a study in journal of forensic science in 2004. looked at environmental factors. object, sidebar 9:44:15 - APPROACH 9:54:30 - the study with varying individuals continued but at that point we looked at individuals decomping on surface. your work with above ground bodies took place at the body farm. looked at 10 surface individuals. some lying on surface, some lying with tarps on tops, some encased in body bags. 9:56:45 - in piping system there are ports and end of each pipe. we collected air containing the odor on a triple-sorbent pad. piece of metal has three types of this activated carbon in it. it captures odor components on activated carbon and you take that back to lab to analyze. for surface bodies, we dangled air trap close to body, put under tarp or in body bag. the tube is then removed, ends are sealed, and anaylze at lab. you heat the metal tube and as tube heats up the activated carbon releases odor compounds, and those are captured. 9:59:30 - odor molecules are frozen and condensed into tiny pellets. can you detect even minute compounds? that's the point of cryo-focusing yes. there were used in both buried and above ground remains. 10:00:45- above ground remains studied for 2-3 years. in initial stages of decomp, we took samples weekly, then bi-weekly, to monthly as body became skeletonized. surface individuals we did weekly. did you update findings in 2004 paper? yes, new findings were in 2008 paper. state submits dr. vass as expert witness. objection, judge allows him as expert witness. 10:02:20 - vass was contacted by yuri melich in 2008. did you have discussion about what they had? i believe so. did they send you some items of evidence to exam? yes. approaches witness. vass was sent metal evidence can first. shown box. ashton opens box. vass takes evidence out of box and IDs it. 10:06:30 - another SIDEBAR 10:10:20 - metal can received into evidence. ashton shows him plastic bag with air sample from trunk. dr. marcus wise analyzed the sample. not sure how sample was collected. not by normal procedure. don't recall results. did you ask orange co. sheriffs to take air samples? i did i sent them an air pump, used to collect air samples thru triple-sorbent traps. are they same devices you used in your studies? the traps, yes. this pump was portable. we use a plug in one at facility. 10:13:10 - did you get back the tubes from various locations relevant to this case? yes, correct. ashton shows him items, evidence. 10:15:30 - items moved into evidence. RECESS 10:44:15 - in actual analysis of items you were sent, assisted with other members? correct. dr. marcus wise, analytical chemist. the lab used to analyze these samples is his lab. he has to make sure instruments are working properly. what was used to analyze the odors? a gas chromatograph spectrometer. 10:46:30 - talks about how evidence in can was analyzed. the can lid was cracked, a syringe was inserted and a sample was removed and injected into gas chroma spect. dr. wise did test. baez objects, overruled. 10:48:40 - what were results of that inital test? SIDEBAR 10:49:50 - SHOT OF GEORGE AND CINDY IN COURTROOM 11:00:30 - did you go over chromatogram of initial results yes, it showed one large peak and a large number of small peaks. the large peak was choloform. is chloroform a compound you've dealt with in research? yes, it's a decomp. event product. what was next step? the reason we progessed is because the cholor was shockingly high, unusually high. because of that, and because of small peaks, we decided to concentrate air sample to ge tbetter representation. did you use same technique of cryo tracking?> yes. you were with dr. wise in room when it was done? yes. the analysis. we actually removed the piece of carpet from metal can. 11:03:00 - we weren't sure if air in can represented what was coming off carpet. put carpet sample in plastic bag, and incubated it for 2 days at 35 celsius ...body temp. what is purpose of incubating? because sample came from trunk of car in florida, we anticipated trunk temp to be warm pluse as you incubate this it speeds of evolution of these compounds. purpose was to get substance released in air? yes, we wanted to determine absolutely what compounds were being liberated from carpet exclusively. how do you take sample from bag? from that bag we extract 10 ml of air and did gcs anaylsis. 11:06:15 - what were the results? object, overuled. we were able to ID 51 individual chemical components. chloroform was one of those. large peaks, tall peaks indicated a concentrated amount. the largest peak was chloroform. did the amount you found surprise you? we were shocked. we've never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples in 20 years. it can be byproduct of decomp? yes, we have seen it in parts per trillion. did you quantify the amount of cholorform in air sample? we made a rough approximation. 11:09:10 - rough approximation was parts per million. did you try to do a more precise measure? no we did not. further quantification wouldn't have been helpful. chloroform has high rate of evaporation. let's say it appeared in trunk of car at some time in the past. over time it's evaporated. at that point when it was collected after all this evaporation took place we were still at parts per million range. 11:11:20 - did you obtain and test piece of carpet from similar vehicle? yes we did. we tested it. ahston shows him document. admitted into evidence. published to jury 11:13:30 - vass talks about top graph, chromatogram of actual test. circles it on screen, the chlorofom peak. numbers off to left are rough approx of how much material is present. the top number is 16 million. this is sample from carpet from car in this case. does this show other peaks. says there are a number of them, circles another region, that represents variety of compounds associated with gasoline. 11:16:10- overlapping compounds bet. gas and odor of human decomp? yes. vass looks at second chart. it's chromatogram of sample from car from junkyard in knoxville, tn. car of similar make. this does show peak for chloroform, cirlces it on the screen in red. 11:18:45 - what level of chloro found in control carpet? peak height is no more than 5 thousand. compared to 16 million in trunk. 11:20:30 - that cholo level in control sample is typical in environmental samples....we consider it trace amounts. after completing the evaluation, did you do additional test on carpet? we used laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. searched for inorganic material. 11:23:10 - what does the laser actually do? it's directed on to carpet. when the laser hits the sample it creates and excited state. a lot of heat is generated. when laser is shut off, electrons fall down to unexcited state. as the electrons fall to ground state, they emit energy as a photon of light. that light is picked up to spectrometer, which can detect it. every element produces a certain characteristic. 11:25:30 - used on carpet sample. utilize those results in final opinion? i did. what is signficance of results of that exam? we were looking for elevated inorganic components consistent with decomp. event such as calcium, etc. we used test to non-destructively exam that carpet to look for these elements. ashton shows vass a document 11:27:50 - baez questions, begins proffer. you're not a physicist? correct. i have used lasers, i'm laser qualified. you have no knowledge of how this test was conducted? i know the procedure. it's well established. i was not present. LET'S REMOVE THE JURY. 11:29:45 - CHAPTER 9704 FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE. REFERENCES DATA AN EXPERT CAN REFERENCE. IF REASONABLY RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT OPINION EXPRESSED, THE FACTS AND DATA MAY NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. PART OF EVIDENCE CODE ALLOWS EXPERTS TO USE INFORMATION TO RENDER AN OPINION. MR BAEZ, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE WANTING TO ATTACK SOME METHODOLOGY. THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. SO TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, EXPERT WITNESSES ARE ABEL TO RELY ON REPORTS OF OTHERS IN FORMULATING THEIR OPINIONS. WHAT YOU MAY GO INTO ARE PROPER SUBJECT FOR CROSS EXAM BUT NOT DEALING WITH WHAT YOU INDICATED. YOU CAN CONTINUE PROFER SO WE CAN SEE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. 11:33:30 - the results of exam were what? showed that inorganic elements assoc with human decomp were significantly elevated from control sample. what compounds were found? calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon, iron. you don't regularly conduct libs exams? personally, know. these items are found in environ? elements found in anything known to man. i know which inorganic elements are elevated during decomp events so i can make a conlusion since all of these elements are elevated, its another corroboration what my nose tells me is correct. 11:36:00 - you could gain some knowledge from these chemicals related to your studies? yes. but that comparative anaylsis can only be done on buried bodies, bodies in bags. that;s not true, you can compare anything you want. you can compare chem output of libs to buried body to surface body? i don't think you understand what's happening here. we compared trunk of car to control samples in junk yard. you can't compare soil sample to paint chip on wall. 11:38:30 - the only comparison you did was bet. junk yard and car in this case? correct. that's the only type of testimony you can give? in terms of libs, yes. 11:39:20 - objection, overruled. I'M GOING TO ASK STATE AND DEFENSE OVER NOON RECESS READ 2010 EDITION OF EARHART, FIRST TWO FULL PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH FOUNDATION REQUIRMENT THAT MUST BE LAID BEFORE EXPERTS CAN REGURGITATE OTHER THINGS. SO WE CAN MOVE MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 11:40:30 - JURY RETURNS 11:41:45 - shown chart on screen. indicates peak showing calcium. control sample shows junk yard sample. its essentially not even present. IDs calcium sample from trunk. one of key inorganics used in post mortem evaluation. 11:43:30 - did you also perform additional analysis of carpet? we did some chemical extractions. i did that. we cut off few of fibers, put it in solvent methanol, let it sit over night. then inject small amount into cgs system. used it to detect compounds in gaseous form. what are the compounds being evaporated off that sample. what did it find? we saw presence of buteric acid. one of volatile fatty acids used for post mortem interval determination. that is the first compound liberated during human decomp. 11:45:45- that was in carpet itself, correct. 11:45:25 - when you first opened can with the carpet sample, what was your reaction? i jumped back a foot or two. i was extremely shocked that the small sample could smell that strong. it smelled like human decomp. and i've never seen that in 20 years experience. you were also given another item of scrapings from wheel well? yes. vass IDs the evidence bag. moved into evidence. 11:48:50 - acedic acid is by product of human decomp. it's also byproduct of manufaturing chloroform. shown evidence bag. opens evidence bag. 11:51:00- vass IDs more samples of paper towels, moved into evidence. APPROACH 11:54:00 - SHOTS OF EVIDENCE BAGS 11:57:00 - ashton confirms samples of evidence were sealed when vass received them. baez inspects box. conditionally received into evidence. RECESS FOR LUNCH 13:32:10 - judge talks about movies being added to movie list ...21, the proposal, 51 first dates, dirty love, blue streak. asks for objections to those titles. 13:34:30 - talked about paper towel and napkins were analyzed using a chemical extraction with methanol. did you run thru cgs? correc. what were the results? the reason that done was because it revealed there were a number of fatty acids present on paper towels. they included oleac acid, stearic acid, palmetto acid. those particular acids make up gray wax ...byproduct of breakdown of fat. associate with decomp? yes. 13:36:30 - purpose of air smaples in garage? we wnated to cinform that the carept sample was point source of the odor. got air sampple from garbage in trunk? yes. was carpet ooint source? that is correct, confirmed that the carpet was the point sounce of the odor. we're looking at a comb of chem compounds. all other compoenents, trash, garage area, contained few compounds of relevance. found in high abundance in carpet samples. those compounds found in trash? no. garage? no 13:38:20 - what is sig of compounds found in carpet sample? odor analysis, each of those odors, is comprised of a number of chemcials. it's concentration and combination that makes those unique. these chem aren't unique in nature. rose may have 10, trash may have 20 chemicals. there's going to be small interaction bet. chemicals in rose and trash. it's chemicals present in each source that makes it unique. in the car trunk sample, we ID 51 ind. compounds. 41 were related to human decomp based on studies we've done over last several years. 13:40:45 - some overlappled gasoline. we eliminated those to avoid confusion. that left 24 compounds. of those we started looking at control samples. eliminated those found in control from junk yard, garage air, pizza box. that left approx 16 compounds. of those 16, seven are considered significant. in the 2008 paper that we published, we listed 30 compounds relevant and significant to human decomp. 13:42:40 - in the trunk of the car we found 13 from that list. we had to eliminate some due to overlap with gasoline. that left us seven. these 30 compounds, are those all appear at same stage of decomp? no, it's a study that comprised relevant compounds across different stages of decomp. (paraphrasing this here - goes on quite a bit about different cycles) 13:44:50 - it's highly unlikely at one time point in decomp you'd find all those present. eleminating gas and control samples, had 7 left. those were found to be in list of 30 compounds we think are most relevant. is there specific chem odor sig for human decomp? i do not think so. based on that eval of odor itself, any opinion about source of odor from car? i consider it consistent with human decomp. you examined scrapings from tire well, how does that fit in? the acedic acid is a product of human decomp. it's not one of most sig on list of 30. the exam of the spare tire cover? all the compounds, inorganic one would expect to see elevated in human decomp event were elevated. 13:47:40 - carpet of spare tire cover? buteric acid we don't see a lot of environmental samples and again is very consistent with a decomp event. you don't see it that often. the paper towels? the fatty tissue essentially includes all the fatty acids we identified on the towels. is it human? i don't think that alone can differentiate it. didn't delve deeply into the analysis. 13:49:55 - based on all of your tests, do you have an opinion about whether there was a decomposing body in the trunk of that car? i can find no other plausible explanation to explain all the results we found. CROSS EXAM 13:51:00 - you're not chemist? correct. biochemist? no. on your CV you put down BS in biology, MS in administration of justice. what is phd? anthropology. your report in this case is forensic? yes. you have two co-authors? correct, dr. martin, physicist and mark wise, chemist,under your name you put research scientist? correct. not anthropologist? correct. you'd refer to dr. wise on chemistry issues? we consult yes. when was last time you took course in chemistry? during my clinical pathologies degree, in the 1980s perhaps. have you held yourself as a chemist? no. 13:54:00 - have you read facebook account ....sustained. have you ever posted a facebook account? i have never posted facebook account on anything. wikipedia? i have never submitted anything to wikipedia. are you aware that one has been posted that .... sustained ....you have financial interest in your testimony? not in my opinion 13:55:30 - the publications is what i use to render opinions. the data base was used to present the data included in publications. how many chem compounds have you developed that comprise of this data base? 478, something like that.what you did with this research for 2004 paper, you buried 4 bodies? correct. and you set up contraptions? yes. allowed us to check soil column, reading at surface, etc. it took 17 days for the chemicals that are generated at body to migrate up soil column to the surface. chemicals are being generated at body interface before then. 13:58:00- this data base you haven't turned over to the defense? SIDEBAR. 14:00:10 - it's not mine to turn over. it's part of grant you were given? it's a deliverable for that organization that paid for that research. and that has not been turned over to defense? i don't know. i thought it was we had depo other day on data base. we've discussed you've used this data base and you turned it over to people who gave you grant? correct. part of what you do is you have to apply for and get grants? yes. you work for research lab? correct. different than forensic lab? yes. part of your job is to bring in sufficient money? yes. part of what you're doing is you hold patent for a device called the labrador? incorrect. inventor of it? listed as inventor on patent disclosure. 14:02:30 - what your goal is with this labrador is sell these units, hand held devices? correct. goal is to sell to police depts across country? in my position at lab we are required to disclose inventions. the end product was an instrument to aid and augment cadaver dogs. because of that project an invention was developed. we correctly filed an invention disclosure based on that instrument. it's labs decision to file patent on that. it's not my decision. 14:04:00- goal is to sell this to police across country? no my goal isn't to sell these at all, my goal is creat a tech tool that police could use in locating clandestine graves. before device can be built, you have to have validation of that data base in court of law? sustained, next quesiont. you get royalties if this device is sold? i honestly don't understand the tech transfer process. if licensee comes in there's a royalty fee associated with that. it's insignificant. 14:06:10 - you get 15 percent of royalties? split between inventors, correct. when you billed out for work, you billed to labrador project, same funding source? no, this was done voluntarily on my own time. this labrador, when you applied for this patent in 2006? that was the first patent disclosure on a prototype that did not end up being the final product. APPROACH 14:12:00 - when publish articles you have to have financial disclosure? i dont think thats true. that's true for certain journals, not all. when you filed report in this case, did you disclose financial interest? vass doesn't understand question. in report in this case, you disclosed financial interest in data base? in report to detective no i did not disclose that. difference bet. research lab and forensic lab is research lab does experiments? 14:13:45 - for the work you did in this case, there are no protocols? in this case the protocols are published in 2008 article. different than what you did in this case? i don't think so. you're asking about procedure, we used the same procedures in 2008 and this case. there is nothing in writing that tells you what procedure you must do when? all you have to look at methods section in peer reviewed paper. the publications you studied have to do with buried remains? buried remains were part of 2004 study. 2008 study looked at surface remains. you don't have quality control at research lab? what do you mean .... you run blanks, standards, that's all part of quality control. 14:16:10 - anything in writing that proper steps were taken to avoid contamination? what type are you referring to ...are you saying instrument contaminated or sample ...either one? i think in bench notes dr. wise wrote he said blanks run, machines calibrated. in this case, you did what was called a qualitative analysis? correct. that means you're Identifying chemicals? correct. as opposed to quantitative telling you how much? yes. 14:18:10 - the research that you testified to was qualitative? correct, we were looking to see if compounds present, plus or minus and rough idea of abundance. you issued report in august as premliminary? yes, i typically do that. it's not your final conclusions? correct. 14:19:30 - APPROACH ? 14:25:30 - within days it became public did it not? i don't know. you were aware this info was released to public? i was made aware, but i didn't do it. do you recall email with csi vincent? i was upset by media attention, yes. it's your understanding your conclusions were being discussed without you finishing work? yes. i was not pleased with it. motion to strike granted. 14:27:30 - how many chemicals did you say you found from carpet sample? i don't have report in front of me, i think 54 was number at that time. in second report did you list? do not recall. shows him report. 14:29:30 - in report two, you had 51? correct. but this was same report? yes, but we realized there was some overlap with gasoline. as we went thru those chemicals, we eliminated duplications missed in prelim report. on report 1, you found 43 consistent with decomp.? yes, that would make sense. when you found 51 in second one, you found 41 consistent with decomp event? correct. you found on first report, 19 of these overlapped? ok. in second report, 17 overlapped with gasoline? ok. 14:31:40 - came up with same percentage? i do not recall. it's possible yes. again conclusions in final report were not based on these numbers. again, i have to literally go thru every chemical to see if we used duplicate name. the final report is most accurate. in second report you went to junk yard and got three pontiac sunfires? yes, it was corrected to two in final report. we intentionally chose worst possible urban contaminated area. we considered new carpet to be unfair comparison. in report you put three? yes i think that error came from the fact we took two samples from one car. you take notes? sometimes i do sometimes i do not. have you reveiwed bench notes in this case? you mean ones dr. wise made in his analysis ... both he and you? i did not review those no. 14:34:45 - aware there were three cars selected? two cars ...results of that third sample? sustained. you don't know history of these cars at junk yard? correct. and dont know history of car in FL? correct. you're doing comparative analysis of junk yard and FL car? correct. one of the two cars had chloroform in trunk? trace amounts, correct. what you did was qualitative analysis? correct, but we did get rough idea of the difference. you've never done studies on carpet? no. you don't know chemical breakdowns of rose? no, just using that as example. 14:37:40 - you were given list of items found in trash? correct. you didn't see them? correct. you don't know chemical breakdown of each item? what i recall are empty plastic containers. don't have list in front of me. we sampled air of composition of all of these. taken in august 2008? i don't recall actual date. 14:39:10 - august 30, 2008, air sample was taken then? i would agree. this was not taken on july 15, 2008? no, you just said it wasn't. you know that air is a free flowing environment? absolutely. that chemical composition can change moment to moment? absolutely. and you did comparisons a month later? yes. you don't know what was done to garbage from july 15-august 30? i do not. you did table in final report? yes. it was complicated. you used these samples to reach these conclusions? that is correct. looks at table. 14:41:20 - you used air sample of trash found in vehicle? correct. you used air sample from passenger area of car? correct. air samples from garage? ok. air sample from garage? correct. air sample from inside the trash? yes.but you did not use air sample from trunk of car? in my table no but I mentioned it in the report. didn't use it because it was taken after it was removed. you used everything else but air from trunk of car? yes, but you have to understand when you collect a triplesorbent trap, that converts to 30-40 liters of air collected. that was compared to 10 mls of air off trunk liner and if you look at the table it indicates that without a doubt the point source of the odor was the trunk. air in trunk was not a valid comparison after the trunk liner was removed. 14:45:40 - you found 7 of the 34 compounds? yes because of trace levels we considered five, we were very very conservative. there were overlaps that broke it down to three? in most cases there were trace amounts. there were three that did not overlap from list of 30? i don't agree, you have to look at chemical composition of each sample. 14:47:30 - 3 chemicals out of 30 you consider significant in human decomposition? that's an unfair statement. there's a process called diffusion. if the trash was in the car and trunk liner was eminating high concentrations, small amt of material could get on trash. when we collected 30 odd liters and found it we reported it. i'd go with eight but in conclusions we went with 5 14:48:50 - out of what we have here, excluding overlap, baez is off mic ........can't HEAR him. 14:49:50 - you cannot account for it but you can make a conclusion based on diffusion? assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions, yes, commom sense included. now i'd like to talk about laser tests. you are not a physicist? correct. the compounds that came up? it was calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon and iron. these are found in numerous items in the environment? absolutely. and they're found in common trash? i don't know that. i haven't done inorganic analysis of common trash. this car from junk yard, the levels are much lower than the one in fl? correct. you don't know how long car was in junk yard? no. 14:52:50 - you compared only 2 cars to the car in FL, which you have no history of? yes, we considered worst case scenario in urban junk yard you'd have all these things that could contaminate. you did not collect those samples? no. in most cases trunk lid was unlocked. AFTERNOON RECESS. 15:12:10 - jury returns 15:13:30 - you knew he trunk was sprayed with bluestar? yes. used to detect blood? yes. 15:14:50 - baez looks thru notes. now consults with his attorneys 15:16:10 - the spraying of carpet sample with bluestar was never done? it wasn't in trunk of the car apparently. someone went to a website and printed out the ingredients? material safety data sheets. yes. nothing further done? no when a chemist looked at the sheets and said those chemicals couldn't have contributed. you knew trunk was sprayed with febreze? yes. you didn't know effects those chemicals would have with those in trunk of car? no. 15:18:10 - baez writes down chemicals on white board. calcium, sodium, magnesium, iron, carbon. how many of these would you guess if you picked up a piece of soil from ground? small amounts of any of those might be present. 15:20:10 - the paper towels had different fatty acids? correct. these included palmetic acid, stearic acid, oleic and myristic? correct. 15:22:15- you said in report these are fatty acids that are like some word i can't understand. (attafacere?) is found in marshes? yes. 15:23:40 - on the paper towel found in the trash, you could find these items in a hamburger? i don't know if that's true. it would have to raw with huge percentage of fat on it. in chicken? i don't know. you have never studied whether you can find this in meat products? the formation of attapocea is favored by a number of issues. one is an anaeroboric environment, one is temp and one is moisture level. those things need to be in conjunction for attopocea to form. can these be found in meat products? i would think in mammals that would be tru. 15:26:30 - found small amounts of thc? yes, byproducts of marijuana. is it still your testimony the samples are from someone with attopocea or the munchies? the meat would have to be raw, loaded with bacteria, have anaerobic conditions it would have to be done with bag over your head and with sig amount of material. 15:27:40 - how did marijuana get there, byproduct of decomp? no we wanted to be as thorough as possible. these protocols, is this the only times you've used this data base is in two cases? you'll have to qualify. did you find hidden graves in barker ranch in CA ....APPROACH, SIDEBAR Jury dismissed. 15:38:30 - baez proceeds with proffer. in 2008, you were asked to analyze soil samples for barker ranch correct? yes. you were sent soil samples? correct. analyzed using gcs? yes. consistent with decomp. event? yes. you then went to trip to actual site? correct. you used instruments in areas IDed by cadaver dogs? correct. a magnetometer was utilized and ground penetrating radar. and excavation ensued? and exploratory excavation. at depth we dug we didn't find anything. but at point we were digging, we hit depth that was surface of site. bodies had been there 40-50 years. conclusion was that this science was in infancy? my statement was we didn't understand environmental factors but science is well established. did you make that statement to member of media that science is in infancy? sustained. the only time you have used this specific science to find a body was barker ranch? no. when you were not successful, what are you error rates for coming up with bodies using cgs? error rates are associated with a measurement. you cannot use that in this case. in 2007-08 time frame, as i explained further, we did not understand environmental parameters involved in this search. 15:43:31 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, NOW HE COMES BACK 15:44:110 - did you give statement to AP that we're trying to improve science? i cannot verify i said that. i don't know what inital question may have been, could be taken out of context, may be refering to environmental conditions. REDIRECT FOR PROFFER 15:45:15 - limitation in depth you could dig, why? time constraints. it was exploratory dig, not full investigation. no one knows if there is a body there? that is a fair statement. BARKER RANCH IS A RANCH WHERE MURDERED AND BURIED SOME PEOPLE. THESE MURDERS OCCURRED 40-50 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE AT ALL. THE QUESTION DEALING WITH BARKER RANCH, OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CROSS CONTAMINATION IN TRUNK VS ALLEGED ODOR OF DECOMP YOU CAN. BUT THE BARKER RANCH HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE. CONDITIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWED THEY HAVE SOME BEARING OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS CASE. 15:47:50 - jury returns, cross exam continues 15:49:10 - asks about protocols related to marijuana. would include proper selection of samples? it could yes. you would have protocols that tell people to avoid storing in areas with gasoline? that's true. you have told people to not contaminate these areas near gasoline? common sense, yes. this area was near gasoline? yes, that's where evidence was. another protocol is that collection be free of trash debris that could result in false positive ...those are your protocols? yes but you can't take that out of context. from what i recall we wrote those in response to an investigator who wanted to collect environmental samples in large open field area. you don't want to collect control sample in pile of trash. you have to take that statement into context. 15:52:10 - again, if i remember correctly we were collecting outdoor soil samples in very large and question came up to collect control sample. because you don't want them collecting these samples near trash? it wouldn't make sense in 40 acre field. cuz they could create false positives? true unless it's part of a crime scene, which is what you need to collect evidence. 15:53:20 - SIDEBAR 16:02:40 - you talked about ability to find clandestine graves? sustained. do you know what divining rods are? yes. they are antennae used to locate properties of specific materials. can it be made from coat hanger? yes. have you taught on this subject? yes, it's a hobby like stamp collecting and it's a wonderful way to teach science. MOVE ON MR BAEZ GET TO THE POINT. 16:04:10 - you have attempted to put electronic leashes on flies? sustained. the testimony you have given today is first time you've given this testimony in court of law? correct. not admitted in any court in country? i wouldn't know that. i don't know if anyone else has data base perhaps, i don't know that. your findings are not generally accepted in scientific community. sustained STRUCK FROM RECORD. any papers that have same findings as you? there is a paper by dr. stephanapolis that looked at whole bodies and he id'ed four chemicals we used in this case. he did not find chloroform. mr stepha is located in greece? correct. in entire world, the only person you think agrees with your finding is ....sustained. the only other study you find is a person in greece? i think he's the only one who have used entire bodies. others have used pieces of tissue. he used other data base? yes, he looked at single time point. we did a 5 year study. 16:07:30 - the smell of human decomp is unique? to me it is, yes. he asked you what your opinion was and you said smell is unique? yes. recall statement to knoxville news human decomp smells like a potato gone bad? i believe i made that statement yes. we actually looked at decomposing potato and chemical composition is completely different. one of key markers of decomp is flouride is one of chemical signatures? a halogenated flouride compound yes. in this case you didn't find flouride? no, not in positive control either. 16:09:50 - the positive control was a blanket from body of a child in trunk of car for three months? correct. don't know circumstances on recovery, storage? correct. nevertheless we saw the primary sulfer compounds and point of control was to show compounds found in fl trunk could be found in a trunk. you're twisting things around a tad. we're looking at 30 compounds. it leaves 10 compounds of 30 that were relevant, we found 8 in trunk of the car. 16:12:00 - we did chemical analysis, we know makeup. don't know history, no. you have no idea what was in the trunk of this car in the 10 years it was in existence? no i do not. you have no idea of what chemical makeup of any of the junk yard samples? no, we analyzed and know what gasses are liberated. the child in montana case was wrapped in blanket, that was stained, thank goodness we don't find many children in cars. 16:13:45 - this is the first time you've conducted experiment on carpet sample? wonderful thing about forensic science is every sample is unique. correct. 16:15:10 - you are not member of american academy of forensic science? no, not currently. you're not a member of the american board of anthropology? no. not member of any professional organization? no my background is so diverse i wouldn't know which one to join. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS REDIRECT; 16:16:30 - which governs your career more, scientific curiousity or financial benefit? scientific scientist, i'm very curious. last 10 years of career has focused on biochemistry. do you have financial interest in this case? not at all. do you recall depo with mr baez ...inquisition you mean. ...you were asked questions about patent and royalty issue. did you have to refer to someone else to get answers? yes, i had no clue about procedures. didn't know how it worked, it never interested me. 16:18:10 - in seeking control sample of carpet, did you try to find most contaminated carpet? yes. was getting sample part of reason you went to junk yard? absolutely. you talked about diffusion. explain? it is a process where chemicals go from higher to lower concentrations. is that significant in finding point source in this case? yes. what was that item? spare tire cover carpet sample. 16:19:55 - you were asked about bluestar and febreze. you looked up material safety data sheet on those? yes. it is a source of info relied upon in your field? before we use any chemical in national lab we must consult with msds. did either chemical contain chloroform? no. 16:20:55 - fatty acids in paper towels, you said it could come from meat? it would have to be raw, uncooked, high amount of fat, from a mammal, sufficient size to create stain in trunk. have to decompose in anaerobic environ, temp would have to be correct. have to have pounds of hamburger, wrapped up in bag, left to rot with bacteria found in human body? it may cause it. could it be caused by someone eating hamburger and wiping face? no. have seen evidence of pieces of hamburger? no. 16:22:55 - asked about greek study, did he find compounds among 478 you had found? i don't recall, i know there was quite a bit of overlap. the positive control you used, describe? since we had never studied a human decomposing in trunk before, we looked for a person decomposing in trunk. it's unfortunate but we were to find another case in montana where 4 year old died, wrapped in blanket and left in car for 3 months. point of control was to confirm compounds we found in florida trunk could be formed in that type of environment. how did test on carpet in this case compare? 4 of the 5 compounds were present, except chloroform. 16:25:30 - absence of flouride compounds, did you test control for them? if they had been present we would have IDed them. were they present? no. why? adults we've studied over years produce a number of flourinated compounds. it is assumed that flourine is these compounds accumulate in body thru bio accumulation. like eating lead paint chips. over time what you do is if you drink flourinated water over your lifetime, you will bioaccumulate flourine in bone tissue. upon death, bacteria convert to flourinated compounds. 16:27:40 - in a small child, it is assumed child - enough time has not passed to begin bioaccumulating in the body. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECROSS 16:28:40 - you addressed issue of flouride in report? i did yes. not studied in children. you're willing to testify that the reason you didn't find flouride is because she's a child and she didn't drink enough water? bioaccumulation is a well known phenomonon in animal kingdom. that is my opinion that that has happened. based on something never been studied? not studied but found in well known phenomenon called bioaccumulation. 16:30:20 - paper towels found in trash bag? i believe that's what i was told. the reason we did that is because dr. haskell sent me those paper towels. on those he IDes fly pupil casings. withdraws question. 16:31:30 - you have no first hand knowledge that those paper towels have anything to do with that stain? i do not. if it's found in conjunction with evidence in that car i don't see why it's not relevant. 16:32:30 - you don't know if the paper towel was used to clean up meat or counter? there was no meat residue on towel we extracted. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECESS AT 16:36:00 DUE TO FACT THAT NEXT WITNESS WILL TAKE MORE THAN 25 MINUTES FOR DIRECT. NEW LIST OF MOVIES SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN APPROVED. JURY DISMISSED FOR THE DAY. 16:37:59- ashton: defense has served him with interstate subpeona for data base, state wants to quash the subpeona. 16:40:00 baez says he'll withdraw the subpeona. ashton off mic asks another question. can't hear it. baez says he would call dr. vass in case, subject to recall.
Factory operator using computer
Factory: operator controls facility, uses pc
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / ISO P1
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / ANTHONY ISO CAM 9:00:10 - baez raises objections about dr voss and his database. says there's no way to confirm any of his testimony. his opinions aren't in conformity with his research. baez he's asking people to trust him on what his research contains. baez wants him to turn over his research so defense can verify. 9:02:30 - jury returns. 9:03:45 - DR. ARPAD VASS CALLED TO STAND 9:04:15 - sr. research scientist at oak ridge lab in TN. been there 20 years. specializes in anthropology, biology, pathology. MS in forensic science. Phd Tennensee in anthropology. also worked as medical technologist. 9:06:30 - talks about his academic history, the "body farm", and how his Phd topic on forensic anthropology came about. was interested in post mortem issues. his dissertation was on biochemical parameters assoc. with human decomposition. 9:09:00 - talks about the (body farm) anthropological research facility. been there 20 years. was only place to study whole body decompositional events. outdoor faclity. began in 1972. at this time, there have been 11-hundred test subjects that have gone thru the facility. bodies left outside under various conditions. 9:10:45 - initial research was looking at chemical breakdown of soft tissue. we analyzed bodily fluids to deterimine what components could indicate how long someone has been dead. goes on to describe four stages of decomposition, a fresh stage, bloat stage, decay and dry. 9:12:30 - talks about early stage of decomposition. if someone dies suddenly, cells don't realize organism as dead and cells continue to metabolize. baez objects. overruled. one of the by products in carbon dioxide. normally it's released thru circulation. but since there's no more circulation, it builds up in cells in body. baez objects, overruled. 9:14:55 - talks about cells, and construct of cells. lysosomes, surrounded by membranes. baez objects, overruled. talks about nutrient rich fluids. this allows second process of decomp. to begin. 9:17:50 - talks about second stage of decomp. where body is liquified, broken down into smaller molecules and dissolution of soft tissue. 9:18:50 - talks about bloat stage. generates gas, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. baez objects, overruled. 9:20:25 - gases have no place to escape, builds up in abdominal region giving appearance of bloat. final stage of decomp is active decay. the major 40-80 percent of decomp. process. all the major liquification of soft tissue occurs. leads to final stage is the dry, skeletonized stage. 9:22:20 - four processes that are important in the rate of decomp. temperature is most important, second is presence of water. third is Ph, acidic level. fourth component is oxygen. 9:24:10 - higher temp. accelerates decomp. what were you looking at in initial study of post mortem interval? we were looking at liquification process. was anything in that liquid important in determining intervals. we found that fat and muscle breaks down into volatile fatty acids. 9:26:30 - talks about inorganic material. found a variety of inorganic components could be used to determine how long someone's been dead. as soft tissue goes away, inorganics become more important. inorganics are calcium, magnesium, etc. published article in 1992 on fatty acids. 9:28:15 - during volatile fatty acid paper, employed at university. awarded Phd based on that work in 1991. went to work for oak ridge in 1992. the department of energy runs a number of labs across country, oak ridge is one of them. has 4-5 thousand employees, number of key areas of research. complicated, requires large teams. 9:31:20 - we have to have expertise in a variety of fields, i may not have a phd in that field but i have to know more than the average person. talks about expertise in microbiology. most projects are multi disciplinary. after the third model we developed based on how tissue breaks down in very early decomp stages, i reached the limit of my knowledge and wanted to research other aspects. that happened in 2001. 9:33:40 - i like challenges. up to that point, i thought time since death was most difficult question a forensic anthropologist could answer. i was wrong. i moved into the detection of clandestine graves, especially if graves are several years old. 9:35:40 - what method did you use to find clandestine graves? we looked at odor evolutions for decomp events. to do that we used the body farm. we buried a number of individuals. we put in a pipe systems above and below bodies and we began monitoring which chemicals are being produced during decomp. we looked at which of compounds made it all the way up to soil column and escaped at the surface. those would be detected by cadaver dogs. 9:37:40 - in initial 10 years of working in forensic anthro, smell decomposing remains at various stages? followed approx 50 individuals from start to finish. fresh when they came in, ended up skeletons. looked at hundreds of individuals at single time points. is odor of human decomp unique? yes. there are publications that describe what chemical components are. 9:39:50 - have you had experience of doing work with animal decomp and the odor? yes, at the facility the animals include pigs. we have deer, dogs, cats we have sampled over the years. is odor of human decomp distinguishable from those other things? i think yes. animals tend to have a more muskier scent, domesticated animals have sweeter scent. 9:41:30 - study using buried bodies began in 2002 and it ended early 2007. published a study in journal of forensic science in 2004. looked at environmental factors. object, sidebar 9:44:15 - APPROACH 9:54:30 - the study with varying individuals continued but at that point we looked at individuals decomping on surface. your work with above ground bodies took place at the body farm. looked at 10 surface individuals. some lying on surface, some lying with tarps on tops, some encased in body bags. 9:56:45 - in piping system there are ports and end of each pipe. we collected air containing the odor on a triple-sorbent pad. piece of metal has three types of this activated carbon in it. it captures odor components on activated carbon and you take that back to lab to analyze. for surface bodies, we dangled air trap close to body, put under tarp or in body bag. the tube is then removed, ends are sealed, and anaylze at lab. you heat the metal tube and as tube heats up the activated carbon releases odor compounds, and those are captured. 9:59:30 - odor molecules are frozen and condensed into tiny pellets. can you detect even minute compounds? that's the point of cryo-focusing yes. there were used in both buried and above ground remains. 10:00:45- above ground remains studied for 2-3 years. in initial stages of decomp, we took samples weekly, then bi-weekly, to monthly as body became skeletonized. surface individuals we did weekly. did you update findings in 2004 paper? yes, new findings were in 2008 paper. state submits dr. vass as expert witness. objection, judge allows him as expert witness. 10:02:20 - vass was contacted by yuri melich in 2008. did you have discussion about what they had? i believe so. did they send you some items of evidence to exam? yes. approaches witness. vass was sent metal evidence can first. shown box. ashton opens box. vass takes evidence out of box and IDs it. 10:06:30 - another SIDEBAR 10:10:20 - metal can received into evidence. ashton shows him plastic bag with air sample from trunk. dr. marcus wise analyzed the sample. not sure how sample was collected. not by normal procedure. don't recall results. did you ask orange co. sheriffs to take air samples? i did i sent them an air pump, used to collect air samples thru triple-sorbent traps. are they same devices you used in your studies? the traps, yes. this pump was portable. we use a plug in one at facility. 10:13:10 - did you get back the tubes from various locations relevant to this case? yes, correct. ashton shows him items, evidence. 10:15:30 - items moved into evidence. RECESS 10:44:15 - in actual analysis of items you were sent, assisted with other members? correct. dr. marcus wise, analytical chemist. the lab used to analyze these samples is his lab. he has to make sure instruments are working properly. what was used to analyze the odors? a gas chromatograph spectrometer. 10:46:30 - talks about how evidence in can was analyzed. the can lid was cracked, a syringe was inserted and a sample was removed and injected into gas chroma spect. dr. wise did test. baez objects, overruled. 10:48:40 - what were results of that inital test? SIDEBAR 10:49:50 - SHOT OF GEORGE AND CINDY IN COURTROOM 11:00:30 - did you go over chromatogram of initial results yes, it showed one large peak and a large number of small peaks. the large peak was choloform. is chloroform a compound you've dealt with in research? yes, it's a decomp. event product. what was next step? the reason we progessed is because the cholor was shockingly high, unusually high. because of that, and because of small peaks, we decided to concentrate air sample to ge tbetter representation. did you use same technique of cryo tracking?> yes. you were with dr. wise in room when it was done? yes. the analysis. we actually removed the piece of carpet from metal can. 11:03:00 - we weren't sure if air in can represented what was coming off carpet. put carpet sample in plastic bag, and incubated it for 2 days at 35 celsius ...body temp. what is purpose of incubating? because sample came from trunk of car in florida, we anticipated trunk temp to be warm pluse as you incubate this it speeds of evolution of these compounds. purpose was to get substance released in air? yes, we wanted to determine absolutely what compounds were being liberated from carpet exclusively. how do you take sample from bag? from that bag we extract 10 ml of air and did gcs anaylsis. 11:06:15 - what were the results? object, overuled. we were able to ID 51 individual chemical components. chloroform was one of those. large peaks, tall peaks indicated a concentrated amount. the largest peak was chloroform. did the amount you found surprise you? we were shocked. we've never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples in 20 years. it can be byproduct of decomp? yes, we have seen it in parts per trillion. did you quantify the amount of cholorform in air sample? we made a rough approximation. 11:09:10 - rough approximation was parts per million. did you try to do a more precise measure? no we did not. further quantification wouldn't have been helpful. chloroform has high rate of evaporation. let's say it appeared in trunk of car at some time in the past. over time it's evaporated. at that point when it was collected after all this evaporation took place we were still at parts per million range. 11:11:20 - did you obtain and test piece of carpet from similar vehicle? yes we did. we tested it. ahston shows him document. admitted into evidence. published to jury 11:13:30 - vass talks about top graph, chromatogram of actual test. circles it on screen, the chlorofom peak. numbers off to left are rough approx of how much material is present. the top number is 16 million. this is sample from carpet from car in this case. does this show other peaks. says there are a number of them, circles another region, that represents variety of compounds associated with gasoline. 11:16:10- overlapping compounds bet. gas and odor of human decomp? yes. vass looks at second chart. it's chromatogram of sample from car from junkyard in knoxville, tn. car of similar make. this does show peak for chloroform, cirlces it on the screen in red. 11:18:45 - what level of chloro found in control carpet? peak height is no more than 5 thousand. compared to 16 million in trunk. 11:20:30 - that cholo level in control sample is typical in environmental samples....we consider it trace amounts. after completing the evaluation, did you do additional test on carpet? we used laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. searched for inorganic material. 11:23:10 - what does the laser actually do? it's directed on to carpet. when the laser hits the sample it creates and excited state. a lot of heat is generated. when laser is shut off, electrons fall down to unexcited state. as the electrons fall to ground state, they emit energy as a photon of light. that light is picked up to spectrometer, which can detect it. every element produces a certain characteristic. 11:25:30 - used on carpet sample. utilize those results in final opinion? i did. what is signficance of results of that exam? we were looking for elevated inorganic components consistent with decomp. event such as calcium, etc. we used test to non-destructively exam that carpet to look for these elements. ashton shows vass a document 11:27:50 - baez questions, begins proffer. you're not a physicist? correct. i have used lasers, i'm laser qualified. you have no knowledge of how this test was conducted? i know the procedure. it's well established. i was not present. LET'S REMOVE THE JURY. 11:29:45 - CHAPTER 9704 FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE. REFERENCES DATA AN EXPERT CAN REFERENCE. IF REASONABLY RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT OPINION EXPRESSED, THE FACTS AND DATA MAY NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. PART OF EVIDENCE CODE ALLOWS EXPERTS TO USE INFORMATION TO RENDER AN OPINION. MR BAEZ, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE WANTING TO ATTACK SOME METHODOLOGY. THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. SO TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, EXPERT WITNESSES ARE ABEL TO RELY ON REPORTS OF OTHERS IN FORMULATING THEIR OPINIONS. WHAT YOU MAY GO INTO ARE PROPER SUBJECT FOR CROSS EXAM BUT NOT DEALING WITH WHAT YOU INDICATED. YOU CAN CONTINUE PROFER SO WE CAN SEE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. 11:33:30 - the results of exam were what? showed that inorganic elements assoc with human decomp were significantly elevated from control sample. what compounds were found? calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon, iron. you don't regularly conduct libs exams? personally, know. these items are found in environ? elements found in anything known to man. i know which inorganic elements are elevated during decomp events so i can make a conlusion since all of these elements are elevated, its another corroboration what my nose tells me is correct. 11:36:00 - you could gain some knowledge from these chemicals related to your studies? yes. but that comparative anaylsis can only be done on buried bodies, bodies in bags. that;s not true, you can compare anything you want. you can compare chem output of libs to buried body to surface body? i don't think you understand what's happening here. we compared trunk of car to control samples in junk yard. you can't compare soil sample to paint chip on wall. 11:38:30 - the only comparison you did was bet. junk yard and car in this case? correct. that's the only type of testimony you can give? in terms of libs, yes. 11:39:20 - objection, overruled. I'M GOING TO ASK STATE AND DEFENSE OVER NOON RECESS READ 2010 EDITION OF EARHART, FIRST TWO FULL PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH FOUNDATION REQUIRMENT THAT MUST BE LAID BEFORE EXPERTS CAN REGURGITATE OTHER THINGS. SO WE CAN MOVE MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 11:40:30 - JURY RETURNS 11:41:45 - shown chart on screen. indicates peak showing calcium. control sample shows junk yard sample. its essentially not even present. IDs calcium sample from trunk. one of key inorganics used in post mortem evaluation. 11:43:30 - did you also perform additional analysis of carpet? we did some chemical extractions. i did that. we cut off few of fibers, put it in solvent methanol, let it sit over night. then inject small amount into cgs system. used it to detect compounds in gaseous form. what are the compounds being evaporated off that sample. what did it find? we saw presence of buteric acid. one of volatile fatty acids used for post mortem interval determination. that is the first compound liberated during human decomp. 11:45:45- that was in carpet itself, correct. 11:45:25 - when you first opened can with the carpet sample, what was your reaction? i jumped back a foot or two. i was extremely shocked that the small sample could smell that strong. it smelled like human decomp. and i've never seen that in 20 years experience. you were also given another item of scrapings from wheel well? yes. vass IDs the evidence bag. moved into evidence. 11:48:50 - acedic acid is by product of human decomp. it's also byproduct of manufaturing chloroform. shown evidence bag. opens evidence bag. 11:51:00- vass IDs more samples of paper towels, moved into evidence. APPROACH 11:54:00 - SHOTS OF EVIDENCE BAGS 11:57:00 - ashton confirms samples of evidence were sealed when vass received them. baez inspects box. conditionally received into evidence. RECESS FOR LUNCH 13:32:10 - judge talks about movies being added to movie list ...21, the proposal, 51 first dates, dirty love, blue streak. asks for objections to those titles. 13:34:30 - talked about paper towel and napkins were analyzed using a chemical extraction with methanol. did you run thru cgs? correc. what were the results? the reason that done was because it revealed there were a number of fatty acids present on paper towels. they included oleac acid, stearic acid, palmetto acid. those particular acids make up gray wax ...byproduct of breakdown of fat. associate with decomp? yes. 13:36:30 - purpose of air smaples in garage? we wnated to cinform that the carept sample was point source of the odor. got air sampple from garbage in trunk? yes. was carpet ooint source? that is correct, confirmed that the carpet was the point sounce of the odor. we're looking at a comb of chem compounds. all other compoenents, trash, garage area, contained few compounds of relevance. found in high abundance in carpet samples. those compounds found in trash? no. garage? no 13:38:20 - what is sig of compounds found in carpet sample? odor analysis, each of those odors, is comprised of a number of chemcials. it's concentration and combination that makes those unique. these chem aren't unique in nature. rose may have 10, trash may have 20 chemicals. there's going to be small interaction bet. chemicals in rose and trash. it's chemicals present in each source that makes it unique. in the car trunk sample, we ID 51 ind. compounds. 41 were related to human decomp based on studies we've done over last several years. 13:40:45 - some overlappled gasoline. we eliminated those to avoid confusion. that left 24 compounds. of those we started looking at control samples. eliminated those found in control from junk yard, garage air, pizza box. that left approx 16 compounds. of those 16, seven are considered significant. in the 2008 paper that we published, we listed 30 compounds relevant and significant to human decomp. 13:42:40 - in the trunk of the car we found 13 from that list. we had to eliminate some due to overlap with gasoline. that left us seven. these 30 compounds, are those all appear at same stage of decomp? no, it's a study that comprised relevant compounds across different stages of decomp. (paraphrasing this here - goes on quite a bit about different cycles) 13:44:50 - it's highly unlikely at one time point in decomp you'd find all those present. eleminating gas and control samples, had 7 left. those were found to be in list of 30 compounds we think are most relevant. is there specific chem odor sig for human decomp? i do not think so. based on that eval of odor itself, any opinion about source of odor from car? i consider it consistent with human decomp. you examined scrapings from tire well, how does that fit in? the acedic acid is a product of human decomp. it's not one of most sig on list of 30. the exam of the spare tire cover? all the compounds, inorganic one would expect to see elevated in human decomp event were elevated. 13:47:40 - carpet of spare tire cover? buteric acid we don't see a lot of environmental samples and again is very consistent with a decomp event. you don't see it that often. the paper towels? the fatty tissue essentially includes all the fatty acids we identified on the towels. is it human? i don't think that alone can differentiate it. didn't delve deeply into the analysis. 13:49:55 - based on all of your tests, do you have an opinion about whether there was a decomposing body in the trunk of that car? i can find no other plausible explanation to explain all the results we found. CROSS EXAM 13:51:00 - you're not chemist? correct. biochemist? no. on your CV you put down BS in biology, MS in administration of justice. what is phd? anthropology. your report in this case is forensic? yes. you have two co-authors? correct, dr. martin, physicist and mark wise, chemist,under your name you put research scientist? correct. not anthropologist? correct. you'd refer to dr. wise on chemistry issues? we consult yes. when was last time you took course in chemistry? during my clinical pathologies degree, in the 1980s perhaps. have you held yourself as a chemist? no. 13:54:00 - have you read facebook account ....sustained. have you ever posted a facebook account? i have never posted facebook account on anything. wikipedia? i have never submitted anything to wikipedia. are you aware that one has been posted that .... sustained ....you have financial interest in your testimony? not in my opinion 13:55:30 - the publications is what i use to render opinions. the data base was used to present the data included in publications. how many chem compounds have you developed that comprise of this data base? 478, something like that.what you did with this research for 2004 paper, you buried 4 bodies? correct. and you set up contraptions? yes. allowed us to check soil column, reading at surface, etc. it took 17 days for the chemicals that are generated at body to migrate up soil column to the surface. chemicals are being generated at body interface before then. 13:58:00- this data base you haven't turned over to the defense? SIDEBAR. 14:00:10 - it's not mine to turn over. it's part of grant you were given? it's a deliverable for that organization that paid for that research. and that has not been turned over to defense? i don't know. i thought it was we had depo other day on data base. we've discussed you've used this data base and you turned it over to people who gave you grant? correct. part of what you do is you have to apply for and get grants? yes. you work for research lab? correct. different than forensic lab? yes. part of your job is to bring in sufficient money? yes. part of what you're doing is you hold patent for a device called the labrador? incorrect. inventor of it? listed as inventor on patent disclosure. 14:02:30 - what your goal is with this labrador is sell these units, hand held devices? correct. goal is to sell to police depts across country? in my position at lab we are required to disclose inventions. the end product was an instrument to aid and augment cadaver dogs. because of that project an invention was developed. we correctly filed an invention disclosure based on that instrument. it's labs decision to file patent on that. it's not my decision. 14:04:00- goal is to sell this to police across country? no my goal isn't to sell these at all, my goal is creat a tech tool that police could use in locating clandestine graves. before device can be built, you have to have validation of that data base in court of law? sustained, next quesiont. you get royalties if this device is sold? i honestly don't understand the tech transfer process. if licensee comes in there's a royalty fee associated with that. it's insignificant. 14:06:10 - you get 15 percent of royalties? split between inventors, correct. when you billed out for work, you billed to labrador project, same funding source? no, this was done voluntarily on my own time. this labrador, when you applied for this patent in 2006? that was the first patent disclosure on a prototype that did not end up being the final product. APPROACH 14:12:00 - when publish articles you have to have financial disclosure? i dont think thats true. that's true for certain journals, not all. when you filed report in this case, did you disclose financial interest? vass doesn't understand question. in report in this case, you disclosed financial interest in data base? in report to detective no i did not disclose that. difference bet. research lab and forensic lab is research lab does experiments? 14:13:45 - for the work you did in this case, there are no protocols? in this case the protocols are published in 2008 article. different than what you did in this case? i don't think so. you're asking about procedure, we used the same procedures in 2008 and this case. there is nothing in writing that tells you what procedure you must do when? all you have to look at methods section in peer reviewed paper. the publications you studied have to do with buried remains? buried remains were part of 2004 study. 2008 study looked at surface remains. you don't have quality control at research lab? what do you mean .... you run blanks, standards, that's all part of quality control. 14:16:10 - anything in writing that proper steps were taken to avoid contamination? what type are you referring to ...are you saying instrument contaminated or sample ...either one? i think in bench notes dr. wise wrote he said blanks run, machines calibrated. in this case, you did what was called a qualitative analysis? correct. that means you're Identifying chemicals? correct. as opposed to quantitative telling you how much? yes. 14:18:10 - the research that you testified to was qualitative? correct, we were looking to see if compounds present, plus or minus and rough idea of abundance. you issued report in august as premliminary? yes, i typically do that. it's not your final conclusions? correct. 14:19:30 - APPROACH ? 14:25:30 - within days it became public did it not? i don't know. you were aware this info was released to public? i was made aware, but i didn't do it. do you recall email with csi vincent? i was upset by media attention, yes. it's your understanding your conclusions were being discussed without you finishing work? yes. i was not pleased with it. motion to strike granted. 14:27:30 - how many chemicals did you say you found from carpet sample? i don't have report in front of me, i think 54 was number at that time. in second report did you list? do not recall. shows him report. 14:29:30 - in report two, you had 51? correct. but this was same report? yes, but we realized there was some overlap with gasoline. as we went thru those chemicals, we eliminated duplications missed in prelim report. on report 1, you found 43 consistent with decomp.? yes, that would make sense. when you found 51 in second one, you found 41 consistent with decomp event? correct. you found on first report, 19 of these overlapped? ok. in second report, 17 overlapped with gasoline? ok. 14:31:40 - came up with same percentage? i do not recall. it's possible yes. again conclusions in final report were not based on these numbers. again, i have to literally go thru every chemical to see if we used duplicate name. the final report is most accurate. in second report you went to junk yard and got three pontiac sunfires? yes, it was corrected to two in final report. we intentionally chose worst possible urban contaminated area. we considered new carpet to be unfair comparison. in report you put three? yes i think that error came from the fact we took two samples from one car. you take notes? sometimes i do sometimes i do not. have you reveiwed bench notes in this case? you mean ones dr. wise made in his analysis ... both he and you? i did not review those no. 14:34:45 - aware there were three cars selected? two cars ...results of that third sample? sustained. you don't know history of these cars at junk yard? correct. and dont know history of car in FL? correct. you're doing comparative analysis of junk yard and FL car? correct. one of the two cars had chloroform in trunk? trace amounts, correct. what you did was qualitative analysis? correct, but we did get rough idea of the difference. you've never done studies on carpet? no. you don't know chemical breakdowns of rose? no, just using that as example. 14:37:40 - you were given list of items found in trash? correct. you didn't see them? correct. you don't know chemical breakdown of each item? what i recall are empty plastic containers. don't have list in front of me. we sampled air of composition of all of these. taken in august 2008? i don't recall actual date. 14:39:10 - august 30, 2008, air sample was taken then? i would agree. this was not taken on july 15, 2008? no, you just said it wasn't. you know that air is a free flowing environment? absolutely. that chemical composition can change moment to moment? absolutely. and you did comparisons a month later? yes. you don't know what was done to garbage from july 15-august 30? i do not. you did table in final report? yes. it was complicated. you used these samples to reach these conclusions? that is correct. looks at table. 14:41:20 - you used air sample of trash found in vehicle? correct. you used air sample from passenger area of car? correct. air samples from garage? ok. air sample from garage? correct. air sample from inside the trash? yes.but you did not use air sample from trunk of car? in my table no but I mentioned it in the report. didn't use it because it was taken after it was removed. you used everything else but air from trunk of car? yes, but you have to understand when you collect a triplesorbent trap, that converts to 30-40 liters of air collected. that was compared to 10 mls of air off trunk liner and if you look at the table it indicates that without a doubt the point source of the odor was the trunk. air in trunk was not a valid comparison after the trunk liner was removed. 14:45:40 - you found 7 of the 34 compounds? yes because of trace levels we considered five, we were very very conservative. there were overlaps that broke it down to three? in most cases there were trace amounts. there were three that did not overlap from list of 30? i don't agree, you have to look at chemical composition of each sample. 14:47:30 - 3 chemicals out of 30 you consider significant in human decomposition? that's an unfair statement. there's a process called diffusion. if the trash was in the car and trunk liner was eminating high concentrations, small amt of material could get on trash. when we collected 30 odd liters and found it we reported it. i'd go with eight but in conclusions we went with 5 14:48:50 - out of what we have here, excluding overlap, baez is off mic ........can't HEAR him. 14:49:50 - you cannot account for it but you can make a conclusion based on diffusion? assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions, yes, commom sense included. now i'd like to talk about laser tests. you are not a physicist? correct. the compounds that came up? it was calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon and iron. these are found in numerous items in the environment? absolutely. and they're found in common trash? i don't know that. i haven't done inorganic analysis of common trash. this car from junk yard, the levels are much lower than the one in fl? correct. you don't know how long car was in junk yard? no. 14:52:50 - you compared only 2 cars to the car in FL, which you have no history of? yes, we considered worst case scenario in urban junk yard you'd have all these things that could contaminate. you did not collect those samples? no. in most cases trunk lid was unlocked. AFTERNOON RECESS. 15:12:10 - jury returns 15:13:30 - you knew he trunk was sprayed with bluestar? yes. used to detect blood? yes. 15:14:50 - baez looks thru notes. now consults with his attorneys 15:16:10 - the spraying of carpet sample with bluestar was never done? it wasn't in trunk of the car apparently. someone went to a website and printed out the ingredients? material safety data sheets. yes. nothing further done? no when a chemist looked at the sheets and said those chemicals couldn't have contributed. you knew trunk was sprayed with febreze? yes. you didn't know effects those chemicals would have with those in trunk of car? no. 15:18:10 - baez writes down chemicals on white board. calcium, sodium, magnesium, iron, carbon. how many of these would you guess if you picked up a piece of soil from ground? small amounts of any of those might be present. 15:20:10 - the paper towels had different fatty acids? correct. these included palmetic acid, stearic acid, oleic and myristic? correct. 15:22:15- you said in report these are fatty acids that are like some word i can't understand. (attafacere?) is found in marshes? yes. 15:23:40 - on the paper towel found in the trash, you could find these items in a hamburger? i don't know if that's true. it would have to raw with huge percentage of fat on it. in chicken? i don't know. you have never studied whether you can find this in meat products? the formation of attapocea is favored by a number of issues. one is an anaeroboric environment, one is temp and one is moisture level. those things need to be in conjunction for attopocea to form. can these be found in meat products? i would think in mammals that would be tru. 15:26:30 - found small amounts of thc? yes, byproducts of marijuana. is it still your testimony the samples are from someone with attopocea or the munchies? the meat would have to be raw, loaded with bacteria, have anaerobic conditions it would have to be done with bag over your head and with sig amount of material. 15:27:40 - how did marijuana get there, byproduct of decomp? no we wanted to be as thorough as possible. these protocols, is this the only times you've used this data base is in two cases? you'll have to qualify. did you find hidden graves in barker ranch in CA ....APPROACH, SIDEBAR Jury dismissed. 15:38:30 - baez proceeds with proffer. in 2008, you were asked to analyze soil samples for barker ranch correct? yes. you were sent soil samples? correct. analyzed using gcs? yes. consistent with decomp. event? yes. you then went to trip to actual site? correct. you used instruments in areas IDed by cadaver dogs? correct. a magnetometer was utilized and ground penetrating radar. and excavation ensued? and exploratory excavation. at depth we dug we didn't find anything. but at point we were digging, we hit depth that was surface of site. bodies had been there 40-50 years. conclusion was that this science was in infancy? my statement was we didn't understand environmental factors but science is well established. did you make that statement to member of media that science is in infancy? sustained. the only time you have used this specific science to find a body was barker ranch? no. when you were not successful, what are you error rates for coming up with bodies using cgs? error rates are associated with a measurement. you cannot use that in this case. in 2007-08 time frame, as i explained further, we did not understand environmental parameters involved in this search. 15:43:31 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, NOW HE COMES BACK 15:44:110 - did you give statement to AP that we're trying to improve science? i cannot verify i said that. i don't know what inital question may have been, could be taken out of context, may be refering to environmental conditions. REDIRECT FOR PROFFER 15:45:15 - limitation in depth you could dig, why? time constraints. it was exploratory dig, not full investigation. no one knows if there is a body there? that is a fair statement. BARKER RANCH IS A RANCH WHERE MURDERED AND BURIED SOME PEOPLE. THESE MURDERS OCCURRED 40-50 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE AT ALL. THE QUESTION DEALING WITH BARKER RANCH, OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CROSS CONTAMINATION IN TRUNK VS ALLEGED ODOR OF DECOMP YOU CAN. BUT THE BARKER RANCH HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE. CONDITIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWED THEY HAVE SOME BEARING OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS CASE. 15:47:50 - jury returns, cross exam continues 15:49:10 - asks about protocols related to marijuana. would include proper selection of samples? it could yes. you would have protocols that tell people to avoid storing in areas with gasoline? that's true. you have told people to not contaminate these areas near gasoline? common sense, yes. this area was near gasoline? yes, that's where evidence was. another protocol is that collection be free of trash debris that could result in false positive ...those are your protocols? yes but you can't take that out of context. from what i recall we wrote those in response to an investigator who wanted to collect environmental samples in large open field area. you don't want to collect control sample in pile of trash. you have to take that statement into context. 15:52:10 - again, if i remember correctly we were collecting outdoor soil samples in very large and question came up to collect control sample. because you don't want them collecting these samples near trash? it wouldn't make sense in 40 acre field. cuz they could create false positives? true unless it's part of a crime scene, which is what you need to collect evidence. 15:53:20 - SIDEBAR 16:02:40 - you talked about ability to find clandestine graves? sustained. do you know what divining rods are? yes. they are antennae used to locate properties of specific materials. can it be made from coat hanger? yes. have you taught on this subject? yes, it's a hobby like stamp collecting and it's a wonderful way to teach science. MOVE ON MR BAEZ GET TO THE POINT. 16:04:10 - you have attempted to put electronic leashes on flies? sustained. the testimony you have given today is first time you've given this testimony in court of law? correct. not admitted in any court in country? i wouldn't know that. i don't know if anyone else has data base perhaps, i don't know that. your findings are not generally accepted in scientific community. sustained STRUCK FROM RECORD. any papers that have same findings as you? there is a paper by dr. stephanapolis that looked at whole bodies and he id'ed four chemicals we used in this case. he did not find chloroform. mr stepha is located in greece? correct. in entire world, the only person you think agrees with your finding is ....sustained. the only other study you find is a person in greece? i think he's the only one who have used entire bodies. others have used pieces of tissue. he used other data base? yes, he looked at single time point. we did a 5 year study. 16:07:30 - the smell of human decomp is unique? to me it is, yes. he asked you what your opinion was and you said smell is unique? yes. recall statement to knoxville news human decomp smells like a potato gone bad? i believe i made that statement yes. we actually looked at decomposing potato and chemical composition is completely different. one of key markers of decomp is flouride is one of chemical signatures? a halogenated flouride compound yes. in this case you didn't find flouride? no, not in positive control either. 16:09:50 - the positive control was a blanket from body of a child in trunk of car for three months? correct. don't know circumstances on recovery, storage? correct. nevertheless we saw the primary sulfer compounds and point of control was to show compounds found in fl trunk could be found in a trunk. you're twisting things around a tad. we're looking at 30 compounds. it leaves 10 compounds of 30 that were relevant, we found 8 in trunk of the car. 16:12:00 - we did chemical analysis, we know makeup. don't know history, no. you have no idea what was in the trunk of this car in the 10 years it was in existence? no i do not. you have no idea of what chemical makeup of any of the junk yard samples? no, we analyzed and know what gasses are liberated. the child in montana case was wrapped in blanket, that was stained, thank goodness we don't find many children in cars. 16:13:45 - this is the first time you've conducted experiment on carpet sample? wonderful thing about forensic science is every sample is unique. correct. 16:15:10 - you are not member of american academy of forensic science? no, not currently. you're not a member of the american board of anthropology? no. not member of any professional organization? no my background is so diverse i wouldn't know which one to join. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS REDIRECT; 16:16:30 - which governs your career more, scientific curiousity or financial benefit? scientific scientist, i'm very curious. last 10 years of career has focused on biochemistry. do you have financial interest in this case? not at all. do you recall depo with mr baez ...inquisition you mean. ...you were asked questions about patent and royalty issue. did you have to refer to someone else to get answers? yes, i had no clue about procedures. didn't know how it worked, it never interested me. 16:18:10 - in seeking control sample of carpet, did you try to find most contaminated carpet? yes. was getting sample part of reason you went to junk yard? absolutely. you talked about diffusion. explain? it is a process where chemicals go from higher to lower concentrations. is that significant in finding point source in this case? yes. what was that item? spare tire cover carpet sample. 16:19:55 - you were asked about bluestar and febreze. you looked up material safety data sheet on those? yes. it is a source of info relied upon in your field? before we use any chemical in national lab we must consult with msds. did either chemical contain chloroform? no. 16:20:55 - fatty acids in paper towels, you said it could come from meat? it would have to be raw, uncooked, high amount of fat, from a mammal, sufficient size to create stain in trunk. have to decompose in anaerobic environ, temp would have to be correct. have to have pounds of hamburger, wrapped up in bag, left to rot with bacteria found in human body? it may cause it. could it be caused by someone eating hamburger and wiping face? no. have seen evidence of pieces of hamburger? no. 16:22:55 - asked about greek study, did he find compounds among 478 you had found? i don't recall, i know there was quite a bit of overlap. the positive control you used, describe? since we had never studied a human decomposing in trunk before, we looked for a person decomposing in trunk. it's unfortunate but we were to find another case in montana where 4 year old died, wrapped in blanket and left in car for 3 months. point of control was to confirm compounds we found in florida trunk could be formed in that type of environment. how did test on carpet in this case compare? 4 of the 5 compounds were present, except chloroform. 16:25:30 - absence of flouride compounds, did you test control for them? if they had been present we would have IDed them. were they present? no. why? adults we've studied over years produce a number of flourinated compounds. it is assumed that flourine is these compounds accumulate in body thru bio accumulation. like eating lead paint chips. over time what you do is if you drink flourinated water over your lifetime, you will bioaccumulate flourine in bone tissue. upon death, bacteria convert to flourinated compounds. 16:27:40 - in a small child, it is assumed child - enough time has not passed to begin bioaccumulating in the body. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECROSS 16:28:40 - you addressed issue of flouride in report? i did yes. not studied in children. you're willing to testify that the reason you didn't find flouride is because she's a child and she didn't drink enough water? bioaccumulation is a well known phenomonon in animal kingdom. that is my opinion that that has happened. based on something never been studied? not studied but found in well known phenomenon called bioaccumulation. 16:30:20 - paper towels found in trash bag? i believe that's what i was told. the reason we did that is because dr. haskell sent me those paper towels. on those he IDes fly pupil casings. withdraws question. 16:31:30 - you have no first hand knowledge that those paper towels have anything to do with that stain? i do not. if it's found in conjunction with evidence in that car i don't see why it's not relevant. 16:32:30 - you don't know if the paper towel was used to clean up meat or counter? there was no meat residue on towel we extracted. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECESS AT 16:36:00 DUE TO FACT THAT NEXT WITNESS WILL TAKE MORE THAN 25 MINUTES FOR DIRECT. NEW LIST OF MOVIES SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN APPROVED. JURY DISMISSED FOR THE DAY. 16:37:59- ashton: defense has served him with interstate subpeona for data base, state wants to quash the subpeona. 16:40:00 baez says he'll withdraw the subpeona. ashton off mic asks another question. can't hear it. baez says he would call dr. vass in case, subject to recall.
Scientist working on laptop with green screen
Scientist Working on Laptop with Green Screen
Green screen golfer - 3
CU pan golfer swinging club.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / ISO P2
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / ANTHONY ISO CAM 9:00:10 - baez raises objections about dr voss and his database. says there's no way to confirm any of his testimony. his opinions aren't in conformity with his research. baez he's asking people to trust him on what his research contains. baez wants him to turn over his research so defense can verify. 9:02:30 - jury returns. 9:03:45 - DR. ARPAD VASS CALLED TO STAND 9:04:15 - sr. research scientist at oak ridge lab in TN. been there 20 years. specializes in anthropology, biology, pathology. MS in forensic science. Phd Tennensee in anthropology. also worked as medical technologist. 9:06:30 - talks about his academic history, the "body farm", and how his Phd topic on forensic anthropology came about. was interested in post mortem issues. his dissertation was on biochemical parameters assoc. with human decomposition. 9:09:00 - talks about the (body farm) anthropological research facility. been there 20 years. was only place to study whole body decompositional events. outdoor faclity. began in 1972. at this time, there have been 11-hundred test subjects that have gone thru the facility. bodies left outside under various conditions. 9:10:45 - initial research was looking at chemical breakdown of soft tissue. we analyzed bodily fluids to deterimine what components could indicate how long someone has been dead. goes on to describe four stages of decomposition, a fresh stage, bloat stage, decay and dry. 9:12:30 - talks about early stage of decomposition. if someone dies suddenly, cells don't realize organism as dead and cells continue to metabolize. baez objects. overruled. one of the by products in carbon dioxide. normally it's released thru circulation. but since there's no more circulation, it builds up in cells in body. baez objects, overruled. 9:14:55 - talks about cells, and construct of cells. lysosomes, surrounded by membranes. baez objects, overruled. talks about nutrient rich fluids. this allows second process of decomp. to begin. 9:17:50 - talks about second stage of decomp. where body is liquified, broken down into smaller molecules and dissolution of soft tissue. 9:18:50 - talks about bloat stage. generates gas, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. baez objects, overruled. 9:20:25 - gases have no place to escape, builds up in abdominal region giving appearance of bloat. final stage of decomp is active decay. the major 40-80 percent of decomp. process. all the major liquification of soft tissue occurs. leads to final stage is the dry, skeletonized stage. 9:22:20 - four processes that are important in the rate of decomp. temperature is most important, second is presence of water. third is Ph, acidic level. fourth component is oxygen. 9:24:10 - higher temp. accelerates decomp. what were you looking at in initial study of post mortem interval? we were looking at liquification process. was anything in that liquid important in determining intervals. we found that fat and muscle breaks down into volatile fatty acids. 9:26:30 - talks about inorganic material. found a variety of inorganic components could be used to determine how long someone's been dead. as soft tissue goes away, inorganics become more important. inorganics are calcium, magnesium, etc. published article in 1992 on fatty acids. 9:28:15 - during volatile fatty acid paper, employed at university. awarded Phd based on that work in 1991. went to work for oak ridge in 1992. the department of energy runs a number of labs across country, oak ridge is one of them. has 4-5 thousand employees, number of key areas of research. complicated, requires large teams. 9:31:20 - we have to have expertise in a variety of fields, i may not have a phd in that field but i have to know more than the average person. talks about expertise in microbiology. most projects are multi disciplinary. after the third model we developed based on how tissue breaks down in very early decomp stages, i reached the limit of my knowledge and wanted to research other aspects. that happened in 2001. 9:33:40 - i like challenges. up to that point, i thought time since death was most difficult question a forensic anthropologist could answer. i was wrong. i moved into the detection of clandestine graves, especially if graves are several years old. 9:35:40 - what method did you use to find clandestine graves? we looked at odor evolutions for decomp events. to do that we used the body farm. we buried a number of individuals. we put in a pipe systems above and below bodies and we began monitoring which chemicals are being produced during decomp. we looked at which of compounds made it all the way up to soil column and escaped at the surface. those would be detected by cadaver dogs. 9:37:40 - in initial 10 years of working in forensic anthro, smell decomposing remains at various stages? followed approx 50 individuals from start to finish. fresh when they came in, ended up skeletons. looked at hundreds of individuals at single time points. is odor of human decomp unique? yes. there are publications that describe what chemical components are. 9:39:50 - have you had experience of doing work with animal decomp and the odor? yes, at the facility the animals include pigs. we have deer, dogs, cats we have sampled over the years. is odor of human decomp distinguishable from those other things? i think yes. animals tend to have a more muskier scent, domesticated animals have sweeter scent. 9:41:30 - study using buried bodies began in 2002 and it ended early 2007. published a study in journal of forensic science in 2004. looked at environmental factors. object, sidebar 9:44:15 - APPROACH 9:54:30 - the study with varying individuals continued but at that point we looked at individuals decomping on surface. your work with above ground bodies took place at the body farm. looked at 10 surface individuals. some lying on surface, some lying with tarps on tops, some encased in body bags. 9:56:45 - in piping system there are ports and end of each pipe. we collected air containing the odor on a triple-sorbent pad. piece of metal has three types of this activated carbon in it. it captures odor components on activated carbon and you take that back to lab to analyze. for surface bodies, we dangled air trap close to body, put under tarp or in body bag. the tube is then removed, ends are sealed, and anaylze at lab. you heat the metal tube and as tube heats up the activated carbon releases odor compounds, and those are captured. 9:59:30 - odor molecules are frozen and condensed into tiny pellets. can you detect even minute compounds? that's the point of cryo-focusing yes. there were used in both buried and above ground remains. 10:00:45- above ground remains studied for 2-3 years. in initial stages of decomp, we took samples weekly, then bi-weekly, to monthly as body became skeletonized. surface individuals we did weekly. did you update findings in 2004 paper? yes, new findings were in 2008 paper. state submits dr. vass as expert witness. objection, judge allows him as expert witness. 10:02:20 - vass was contacted by yuri melich in 2008. did you have discussion about what they had? i believe so. did they send you some items of evidence to exam? yes. approaches witness. vass was sent metal evidence can first. shown box. ashton opens box. vass takes evidence out of box and IDs it. 10:06:30 - another SIDEBAR 10:10:20 - metal can received into evidence. ashton shows him plastic bag with air sample from trunk. dr. marcus wise analyzed the sample. not sure how sample was collected. not by normal procedure. don't recall results. did you ask orange co. sheriffs to take air samples? i did i sent them an air pump, used to collect air samples thru triple-sorbent traps. are they same devices you used in your studies? the traps, yes. this pump was portable. we use a plug in one at facility. 10:13:10 - did you get back the tubes from various locations relevant to this case? yes, correct. ashton shows him items, evidence. 10:15:30 - items moved into evidence. RECESS 10:44:15 - in actual analysis of items you were sent, assisted with other members? correct. dr. marcus wise, analytical chemist. the lab used to analyze these samples is his lab. he has to make sure instruments are working properly. what was used to analyze the odors? a gas chromatograph spectrometer. 10:46:30 - talks about how evidence in can was analyzed. the can lid was cracked, a syringe was inserted and a sample was removed and injected into gas chroma spect. dr. wise did test. baez objects, overruled. 10:48:40 - what were results of that inital test? SIDEBAR 10:49:50 - SHOT OF GEORGE AND CINDY IN COURTROOM 11:00:30 - did you go over chromatogram of initial results yes, it showed one large peak and a large number of small peaks. the large peak was choloform. is chloroform a compound you've dealt with in research? yes, it's a decomp. event product. what was next step? the reason we progessed is because the cholor was shockingly high, unusually high. because of that, and because of small peaks, we decided to concentrate air sample to ge tbetter representation. did you use same technique of cryo tracking?> yes. you were with dr. wise in room when it was done? yes. the analysis. we actually removed the piece of carpet from metal can. 11:03:00 - we weren't sure if air in can represented what was coming off carpet. put carpet sample in plastic bag, and incubated it for 2 days at 35 celsius ...body temp. what is purpose of incubating? because sample came from trunk of car in florida, we anticipated trunk temp to be warm pluse as you incubate this it speeds of evolution of these compounds. purpose was to get substance released in air? yes, we wanted to determine absolutely what compounds were being liberated from carpet exclusively. how do you take sample from bag? from that bag we extract 10 ml of air and did gcs anaylsis. 11:06:15 - what were the results? object, overuled. we were able to ID 51 individual chemical components. chloroform was one of those. large peaks, tall peaks indicated a concentrated amount. the largest peak was chloroform. did the amount you found surprise you? we were shocked. we've never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples in 20 years. it can be byproduct of decomp? yes, we have seen it in parts per trillion. did you quantify the amount of cholorform in air sample? we made a rough approximation. 11:09:10 - rough approximation was parts per million. did you try to do a more precise measure? no we did not. further quantification wouldn't have been helpful. chloroform has high rate of evaporation. let's say it appeared in trunk of car at some time in the past. over time it's evaporated. at that point when it was collected after all this evaporation took place we were still at parts per million range. 11:11:20 - did you obtain and test piece of carpet from similar vehicle? yes we did. we tested it. ahston shows him document. admitted into evidence. published to jury 11:13:30 - vass talks about top graph, chromatogram of actual test. circles it on screen, the chlorofom peak. numbers off to left are rough approx of how much material is present. the top number is 16 million. this is sample from carpet from car in this case. does this show other peaks. says there are a number of them, circles another region, that represents variety of compounds associated with gasoline. 11:16:10- overlapping compounds bet. gas and odor of human decomp? yes. vass looks at second chart. it's chromatogram of sample from car from junkyard in knoxville, tn. car of similar make. this does show peak for chloroform, cirlces it on the screen in red. 11:18:45 - what level of chloro found in control carpet? peak height is no more than 5 thousand. compared to 16 million in trunk. 11:20:30 - that cholo level in control sample is typical in environmental samples....we consider it trace amounts. after completing the evaluation, did you do additional test on carpet? we used laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. searched for inorganic material. 11:23:10 - what does the laser actually do? it's directed on to carpet. when the laser hits the sample it creates and excited state. a lot of heat is generated. when laser is shut off, electrons fall down to unexcited state. as the electrons fall to ground state, they emit energy as a photon of light. that light is picked up to spectrometer, which can detect it. every element produces a certain characteristic. 11:25:30 - used on carpet sample. utilize those results in final opinion? i did. what is signficance of results of that exam? we were looking for elevated inorganic components consistent with decomp. event such as calcium, etc. we used test to non-destructively exam that carpet to look for these elements. ashton shows vass a document 11:27:50 - baez questions, begins proffer. you're not a physicist? correct. i have used lasers, i'm laser qualified. you have no knowledge of how this test was conducted? i know the procedure. it's well established. i was not present. LET'S REMOVE THE JURY. 11:29:45 - CHAPTER 9704 FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE. REFERENCES DATA AN EXPERT CAN REFERENCE. IF REASONABLY RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT OPINION EXPRESSED, THE FACTS AND DATA MAY NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. PART OF EVIDENCE CODE ALLOWS EXPERTS TO USE INFORMATION TO RENDER AN OPINION. MR BAEZ, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE WANTING TO ATTACK SOME METHODOLOGY. THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. SO TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, EXPERT WITNESSES ARE ABEL TO RELY ON REPORTS OF OTHERS IN FORMULATING THEIR OPINIONS. WHAT YOU MAY GO INTO ARE PROPER SUBJECT FOR CROSS EXAM BUT NOT DEALING WITH WHAT YOU INDICATED. YOU CAN CONTINUE PROFER SO WE CAN SEE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. 11:33:30 - the results of exam were what? showed that inorganic elements assoc with human decomp were significantly elevated from control sample. what compounds were found? calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon, iron. you don't regularly conduct libs exams? personally, know. these items are found in environ? elements found in anything known to man. i know which inorganic elements are elevated during decomp events so i can make a conlusion since all of these elements are elevated, its another corroboration what my nose tells me is correct. 11:36:00 - you could gain some knowledge from these chemicals related to your studies? yes. but that comparative anaylsis can only be done on buried bodies, bodies in bags. that;s not true, you can compare anything you want. you can compare chem output of libs to buried body to surface body? i don't think you understand what's happening here. we compared trunk of car to control samples in junk yard. you can't compare soil sample to paint chip on wall. 11:38:30 - the only comparison you did was bet. junk yard and car in this case? correct. that's the only type of testimony you can give? in terms of libs, yes. 11:39:20 - objection, overruled. I'M GOING TO ASK STATE AND DEFENSE OVER NOON RECESS READ 2010 EDITION OF EARHART, FIRST TWO FULL PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH FOUNDATION REQUIRMENT THAT MUST BE LAID BEFORE EXPERTS CAN REGURGITATE OTHER THINGS. SO WE CAN MOVE MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 11:40:30 - JURY RETURNS 11:41:45 - shown chart on screen. indicates peak showing calcium. control sample shows junk yard sample. its essentially not even present. IDs calcium sample from trunk. one of key inorganics used in post mortem evaluation. 11:43:30 - did you also perform additional analysis of carpet? we did some chemical extractions. i did that. we cut off few of fibers, put it in solvent methanol, let it sit over night. then inject small amount into cgs system. used it to detect compounds in gaseous form. what are the compounds being evaporated off that sample. what did it find? we saw presence of buteric acid. one of volatile fatty acids used for post mortem interval determination. that is the first compound liberated during human decomp. 11:45:45- that was in carpet itself, correct. 11:45:25 - when you first opened can with the carpet sample, what was your reaction? i jumped back a foot or two. i was extremely shocked that the small sample could smell that strong. it smelled like human decomp. and i've never seen that in 20 years experience. you were also given another item of scrapings from wheel well? yes. vass IDs the evidence bag. moved into evidence. 11:48:50 - acedic acid is by product of human decomp. it's also byproduct of manufaturing chloroform. shown evidence bag. opens evidence bag. 11:51:00- vass IDs more samples of paper towels, moved into evidence. APPROACH 11:54:00 - SHOTS OF EVIDENCE BAGS 11:57:00 - ashton confirms samples of evidence were sealed when vass received them. baez inspects box. conditionally received into evidence. RECESS FOR LUNCH 13:32:10 - judge talks about movies being added to movie list ...21, the proposal, 51 first dates, dirty love, blue streak. asks for objections to those titles. 13:34:30 - talked about paper towel and napkins were analyzed using a chemical extraction with methanol. did you run thru cgs? correc. what were the results? the reason that done was because it revealed there were a number of fatty acids present on paper towels. they included oleac acid, stearic acid, palmetto acid. those particular acids make up gray wax ...byproduct of breakdown of fat. associate with decomp? yes. 13:36:30 - purpose of air smaples in garage? we wnated to cinform that the carept sample was point source of the odor. got air sampple from garbage in trunk? yes. was carpet ooint source? that is correct, confirmed that the carpet was the point sounce of the odor. we're looking at a comb of chem compounds. all other compoenents, trash, garage area, contained few compounds of relevance. found in high abundance in carpet samples. those compounds found in trash? no. garage? no 13:38:20 - what is sig of compounds found in carpet sample? odor analysis, each of those odors, is comprised of a number of chemcials. it's concentration and combination that makes those unique. these chem aren't unique in nature. rose may have 10, trash may have 20 chemicals. there's going to be small interaction bet. chemicals in rose and trash. it's chemicals present in each source that makes it unique. in the car trunk sample, we ID 51 ind. compounds. 41 were related to human decomp based on studies we've done over last several years. 13:40:45 - some overlappled gasoline. we eliminated those to avoid confusion. that left 24 compounds. of those we started looking at control samples. eliminated those found in control from junk yard, garage air, pizza box. that left approx 16 compounds. of those 16, seven are considered significant. in the 2008 paper that we published, we listed 30 compounds relevant and significant to human decomp. 13:42:40 - in the trunk of the car we found 13 from that list. we had to eliminate some due to overlap with gasoline. that left us seven. these 30 compounds, are those all appear at same stage of decomp? no, it's a study that comprised relevant compounds across different stages of decomp. (paraphrasing this here - goes on quite a bit about different cycles) 13:44:50 - it's highly unlikely at one time point in decomp you'd find all those present. eleminating gas and control samples, had 7 left. those were found to be in list of 30 compounds we think are most relevant. is there specific chem odor sig for human decomp? i do not think so. based on that eval of odor itself, any opinion about source of odor from car? i consider it consistent with human decomp. you examined scrapings from tire well, how does that fit in? the acedic acid is a product of human decomp. it's not one of most sig on list of 30. the exam of the spare tire cover? all the compounds, inorganic one would expect to see elevated in human decomp event were elevated. 13:47:40 - carpet of spare tire cover? buteric acid we don't see a lot of environmental samples and again is very consistent with a decomp event. you don't see it that often. the paper towels? the fatty tissue essentially includes all the fatty acids we identified on the towels. is it human? i don't think that alone can differentiate it. didn't delve deeply into the analysis. 13:49:55 - based on all of your tests, do you have an opinion about whether there was a decomposing body in the trunk of that car? i can find no other plausible explanation to explain all the results we found. CROSS EXAM 13:51:00 - you're not chemist? correct. biochemist? no. on your CV you put down BS in biology, MS in administration of justice. what is phd? anthropology. your report in this case is forensic? yes. you have two co-authors? correct, dr. martin, physicist and mark wise, chemist,under your name you put research scientist? correct. not anthropologist? correct. you'd refer to dr. wise on chemistry issues? we consult yes. when was last time you took course in chemistry? during my clinical pathologies degree, in the 1980s perhaps. have you held yourself as a chemist? no. 13:54:00 - have you read facebook account ....sustained. have you ever posted a facebook account? i have never posted facebook account on anything. wikipedia? i have never submitted anything to wikipedia. are you aware that one has been posted that .... sustained ....you have financial interest in your testimony? not in my opinion 13:55:30 - the publications is what i use to render opinions. the data base was used to present the data included in publications. how many chem compounds have you developed that comprise of this data base? 478, something like that.what you did with this research for 2004 paper, you buried 4 bodies? correct. and you set up contraptions? yes. allowed us to check soil column, reading at surface, etc. it took 17 days for the chemicals that are generated at body to migrate up soil column to the surface. chemicals are being generated at body interface before then. 13:58:00- this data base you haven't turned over to the defense? SIDEBAR. 14:00:10 - it's not mine to turn over. it's part of grant you were given? it's a deliverable for that organization that paid for that research. and that has not been turned over to defense? i don't know. i thought it was we had depo other day on data base. we've discussed you've used this data base and you turned it over to people who gave you grant? correct. part of what you do is you have to apply for and get grants? yes. you work for research lab? correct. different than forensic lab? yes. part of your job is to bring in sufficient money? yes. part of what you're doing is you hold patent for a device called the labrador? incorrect. inventor of it? listed as inventor on patent disclosure. 14:02:30 - what your goal is with this labrador is sell these units, hand held devices? correct. goal is to sell to police depts across country? in my position at lab we are required to disclose inventions. the end product was an instrument to aid and augment cadaver dogs. because of that project an invention was developed. we correctly filed an invention disclosure based on that instrument. it's labs decision to file patent on that. it's not my decision. 14:04:00- goal is to sell this to police across country? no my goal isn't to sell these at all, my goal is creat a tech tool that police could use in locating clandestine graves. before device can be built, you have to have validation of that data base in court of law? sustained, next quesiont. you get royalties if this device is sold? i honestly don't understand the tech transfer process. if licensee comes in there's a royalty fee associated with that. it's insignificant. 14:06:10 - you get 15 percent of royalties? split between inventors, correct. when you billed out for work, you billed to labrador project, same funding source? no, this was done voluntarily on my own time. this labrador, when you applied for this patent in 2006? that was the first patent disclosure on a prototype that did not end up being the final product. APPROACH 14:12:00 - when publish articles you have to have financial disclosure? i dont think thats true. that's true for certain journals, not all. when you filed report in this case, did you disclose financial interest? vass doesn't understand question. in report in this case, you disclosed financial interest in data base? in report to detective no i did not disclose that. difference bet. research lab and forensic lab is research lab does experiments? 14:13:45 - for the work you did in this case, there are no protocols? in this case the protocols are published in 2008 article. different than what you did in this case? i don't think so. you're asking about procedure, we used the same procedures in 2008 and this case. there is nothing in writing that tells you what procedure you must do when? all you have to look at methods section in peer reviewed paper. the publications you studied have to do with buried remains? buried remains were part of 2004 study. 2008 study looked at surface remains. you don't have quality control at research lab? what do you mean .... you run blanks, standards, that's all part of quality control. 14:16:10 - anything in writing that proper steps were taken to avoid contamination? what type are you referring to ...are you saying instrument contaminated or sample ...either one? i think in bench notes dr. wise wrote he said blanks run, machines calibrated. in this case, you did what was called a qualitative analysis? correct. that means you're Identifying chemicals? correct. as opposed to quantitative telling you how much? yes. 14:18:10 - the research that you testified to was qualitative? correct, we were looking to see if compounds present, plus or minus and rough idea of abundance. you issued report in august as premliminary? yes, i typically do that. it's not your final conclusions? correct. 14:19:30 - APPROACH ? 14:25:30 - within days it became public did it not? i don't know. you were aware this info was released to public? i was made aware, but i didn't do it. do you recall email with csi vincent? i was upset by media attention, yes. it's your understanding your conclusions were being discussed without you finishing work? yes. i was not pleased with it. motion to strike granted. 14:27:30 - how many chemicals did you say you found from carpet sample? i don't have report in front of me, i think 54 was number at that time. in second report did you list? do not recall. shows him report. 14:29:30 - in report two, you had 51? correct. but this was same report? yes, but we realized there was some overlap with gasoline. as we went thru those chemicals, we eliminated duplications missed in prelim report. on report 1, you found 43 consistent with decomp.? yes, that would make sense. when you found 51 in second one, you found 41 consistent with decomp event? correct. you found on first report, 19 of these overlapped? ok. in second report, 17 overlapped with gasoline? ok. 14:31:40 - came up with same percentage? i do not recall. it's possible yes. again conclusions in final report were not based on these numbers. again, i have to literally go thru every chemical to see if we used duplicate name. the final report is most accurate. in second report you went to junk yard and got three pontiac sunfires? yes, it was corrected to two in final report. we intentionally chose worst possible urban contaminated area. we considered new carpet to be unfair comparison. in report you put three? yes i think that error came from the fact we took two samples from one car. you take notes? sometimes i do sometimes i do not. have you reveiwed bench notes in this case? you mean ones dr. wise made in his analysis ... both he and you? i did not review those no. 14:34:45 - aware there were three cars selected? two cars ...results of that third sample? sustained. you don't know history of these cars at junk yard? correct. and dont know history of car in FL? correct. you're doing comparative analysis of junk yard and FL car? correct. one of the two cars had chloroform in trunk? trace amounts, correct. what you did was qualitative analysis? correct, but we did get rough idea of the difference. you've never done studies on carpet? no. you don't know chemical breakdowns of rose? no, just using that as example. 14:37:40 - you were given list of items found in trash? correct. you didn't see them? correct. you don't know chemical breakdown of each item? what i recall are empty plastic containers. don't have list in front of me. we sampled air of composition of all of these. taken in august 2008? i don't recall actual date. 14:39:10 - august 30, 2008, air sample was taken then? i would agree. this was not taken on july 15, 2008? no, you just said it wasn't. you know that air is a free flowing environment? absolutely. that chemical composition can change moment to moment? absolutely. and you did comparisons a month later? yes. you don't know what was done to garbage from july 15-august 30? i do not. you did table in final report? yes. it was complicated. you used these samples to reach these conclusions? that is correct. looks at table. 14:41:20 - you used air sample of trash found in vehicle? correct. you used air sample from passenger area of car? correct. air samples from garage? ok. air sample from garage? correct. air sample from inside the trash? yes.but you did not use air sample from trunk of car? in my table no but I mentioned it in the report. didn't use it because it was taken after it was removed. you used everything else but air from trunk of car? yes, but you have to understand when you collect a triplesorbent trap, that converts to 30-40 liters of air collected. that was compared to 10 mls of air off trunk liner and if you look at the table it indicates that without a doubt the point source of the odor was the trunk. air in trunk was not a valid comparison after the trunk liner was removed. 14:45:40 - you found 7 of the 34 compounds? yes because of trace levels we considered five, we were very very conservative. there were overlaps that broke it down to three? in most cases there were trace amounts. there were three that did not overlap from list of 30? i don't agree, you have to look at chemical composition of each sample. 14:47:30 - 3 chemicals out of 30 you consider significant in human decomposition? that's an unfair statement. there's a process called diffusion. if the trash was in the car and trunk liner was eminating high concentrations, small amt of material could get on trash. when we collected 30 odd liters and found it we reported it. i'd go with eight but in conclusions we went with 5 14:48:50 - out of what we have here, excluding overlap, baez is off mic ........can't HEAR him. 14:49:50 - you cannot account for it but you can make a conclusion based on diffusion? assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions, yes, commom sense included. now i'd like to talk about laser tests. you are not a physicist? correct. the compounds that came up? it was calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon and iron. these are found in numerous items in the environment? absolutely. and they're found in common trash? i don't know that. i haven't done inorganic analysis of common trash. this car from junk yard, the levels are much lower than the one in fl? correct. you don't know how long car was in junk yard? no. 14:52:50 - you compared only 2 cars to the car in FL, which you have no history of? yes, we considered worst case scenario in urban junk yard you'd have all these things that could contaminate. you did not collect those samples? no. in most cases trunk lid was unlocked. AFTERNOON RECESS. 15:12:10 - jury returns 15:13:30 - you knew he trunk was sprayed with bluestar? yes. used to detect blood? yes. 15:14:50 - baez looks thru notes. now consults with his attorneys 15:16:10 - the spraying of carpet sample with bluestar was never done? it wasn't in trunk of the car apparently. someone went to a website and printed out the ingredients? material safety data sheets. yes. nothing further done? no when a chemist looked at the sheets and said those chemicals couldn't have contributed. you knew trunk was sprayed with febreze? yes. you didn't know effects those chemicals would have with those in trunk of car? no. 15:18:10 - baez writes down chemicals on white board. calcium, sodium, magnesium, iron, carbon. how many of these would you guess if you picked up a piece of soil from ground? small amounts of any of those might be present. 15:20:10 - the paper towels had different fatty acids? correct. these included palmetic acid, stearic acid, oleic and myristic? correct. 15:22:15- you said in report these are fatty acids that are like some word i can't understand. (attafacere?) is found in marshes? yes. 15:23:40 - on the paper towel found in the trash, you could find these items in a hamburger? i don't know if that's true. it would have to raw with huge percentage of fat on it. in chicken? i don't know. you have never studied whether you can find this in meat products? the formation of attapocea is favored by a number of issues. one is an anaeroboric environment, one is temp and one is moisture level. those things need to be in conjunction for attopocea to form. can these be found in meat products? i would think in mammals that would be tru. 15:26:30 - found small amounts of thc? yes, byproducts of marijuana. is it still your testimony the samples are from someone with attopocea or the munchies? the meat would have to be raw, loaded with bacteria, have anaerobic conditions it would have to be done with bag over your head and with sig amount of material. 15:27:40 - how did marijuana get there, byproduct of decomp? no we wanted to be as thorough as possible. these protocols, is this the only times you've used this data base is in two cases? you'll have to qualify. did you find hidden graves in barker ranch in CA ....APPROACH, SIDEBAR Jury dismissed. 15:38:30 - baez proceeds with proffer. in 2008, you were asked to analyze soil samples for barker ranch correct? yes. you were sent soil samples? correct. analyzed using gcs? yes. consistent with decomp. event? yes. you then went to trip to actual site? correct. you used instruments in areas IDed by cadaver dogs? correct. a magnetometer was utilized and ground penetrating radar. and excavation ensued? and exploratory excavation. at depth we dug we didn't find anything. but at point we were digging, we hit depth that was surface of site. bodies had been there 40-50 years. conclusion was that this science was in infancy? my statement was we didn't understand environmental factors but science is well established. did you make that statement to member of media that science is in infancy? sustained. the only time you have used this specific science to find a body was barker ranch? no. when you were not successful, what are you error rates for coming up with bodies using cgs? error rates are associated with a measurement. you cannot use that in this case. in 2007-08 time frame, as i explained further, we did not understand environmental parameters involved in this search. 15:43:31 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, NOW HE COMES BACK 15:44:110 - did you give statement to AP that we're trying to improve science? i cannot verify i said that. i don't know what inital question may have been, could be taken out of context, may be refering to environmental conditions. REDIRECT FOR PROFFER 15:45:15 - limitation in depth you could dig, why? time constraints. it was exploratory dig, not full investigation. no one knows if there is a body there? that is a fair statement. BARKER RANCH IS A RANCH WHERE MURDERED AND BURIED SOME PEOPLE. THESE MURDERS OCCURRED 40-50 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE AT ALL. THE QUESTION DEALING WITH BARKER RANCH, OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CROSS CONTAMINATION IN TRUNK VS ALLEGED ODOR OF DECOMP YOU CAN. BUT THE BARKER RANCH HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE. CONDITIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWED THEY HAVE SOME BEARING OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS CASE. 15:47:50 - jury returns, cross exam continues 15:49:10 - asks about protocols related to marijuana. would include proper selection of samples? it could yes. you would have protocols that tell people to avoid storing in areas with gasoline? that's true. you have told people to not contaminate these areas near gasoline? common sense, yes. this area was near gasoline? yes, that's where evidence was. another protocol is that collection be free of trash debris that could result in false positive ...those are your protocols? yes but you can't take that out of context. from what i recall we wrote those in response to an investigator who wanted to collect environmental samples in large open field area. you don't want to collect control sample in pile of trash. you have to take that statement into context. 15:52:10 - again, if i remember correctly we were collecting outdoor soil samples in very large and question came up to collect control sample. because you don't want them collecting these samples near trash? it wouldn't make sense in 40 acre field. cuz they could create false positives? true unless it's part of a crime scene, which is what you need to collect evidence. 15:53:20 - SIDEBAR 16:02:40 - you talked about ability to find clandestine graves? sustained. do you know what divining rods are? yes. they are antennae used to locate properties of specific materials. can it be made from coat hanger? yes. have you taught on this subject? yes, it's a hobby like stamp collecting and it's a wonderful way to teach science. MOVE ON MR BAEZ GET TO THE POINT. 16:04:10 - you have attempted to put electronic leashes on flies? sustained. the testimony you have given today is first time you've given this testimony in court of law? correct. not admitted in any court in country? i wouldn't know that. i don't know if anyone else has data base perhaps, i don't know that. your findings are not generally accepted in scientific community. sustained STRUCK FROM RECORD. any papers that have same findings as you? there is a paper by dr. stephanapolis that looked at whole bodies and he id'ed four chemicals we used in this case. he did not find chloroform. mr stepha is located in greece? correct. in entire world, the only person you think agrees with your finding is ....sustained. the only other study you find is a person in greece? i think he's the only one who have used entire bodies. others have used pieces of tissue. he used other data base? yes, he looked at single time point. we did a 5 year study. 16:07:30 - the smell of human decomp is unique? to me it is, yes. he asked you what your opinion was and you said smell is unique? yes. recall statement to knoxville news human decomp smells like a potato gone bad? i believe i made that statement yes. we actually looked at decomposing potato and chemical composition is completely different. one of key markers of decomp is flouride is one of chemical signatures? a halogenated flouride compound yes. in this case you didn't find flouride? no, not in positive control either. 16:09:50 - the positive control was a blanket from body of a child in trunk of car for three months? correct. don't know circumstances on recovery, storage? correct. nevertheless we saw the primary sulfer compounds and point of control was to show compounds found in fl trunk could be found in a trunk. you're twisting things around a tad. we're looking at 30 compounds. it leaves 10 compounds of 30 that were relevant, we found 8 in trunk of the car. 16:12:00 - we did chemical analysis, we know makeup. don't know history, no. you have no idea what was in the trunk of this car in the 10 years it was in existence? no i do not. you have no idea of what chemical makeup of any of the junk yard samples? no, we analyzed and know what gasses are liberated. the child in montana case was wrapped in blanket, that was stained, thank goodness we don't find many children in cars. 16:13:45 - this is the first time you've conducted experiment on carpet sample? wonderful thing about forensic science is every sample is unique. correct. 16:15:10 - you are not member of american academy of forensic science? no, not currently. you're not a member of the american board of anthropology? no. not member of any professional organization? no my background is so diverse i wouldn't know which one to join. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS REDIRECT; 16:16:30 - which governs your career more, scientific curiousity or financial benefit? scientific scientist, i'm very curious. last 10 years of career has focused on biochemistry. do you have financial interest in this case? not at all. do you recall depo with mr baez ...inquisition you mean. ...you were asked questions about patent and royalty issue. did you have to refer to someone else to get answers? yes, i had no clue about procedures. didn't know how it worked, it never interested me. 16:18:10 - in seeking control sample of carpet, did you try to find most contaminated carpet? yes. was getting sample part of reason you went to junk yard? absolutely. you talked about diffusion. explain? it is a process where chemicals go from higher to lower concentrations. is that significant in finding point source in this case? yes. what was that item? spare tire cover carpet sample. 16:19:55 - you were asked about bluestar and febreze. you looked up material safety data sheet on those? yes. it is a source of info relied upon in your field? before we use any chemical in national lab we must consult with msds. did either chemical contain chloroform? no. 16:20:55 - fatty acids in paper towels, you said it could come from meat? it would have to be raw, uncooked, high amount of fat, from a mammal, sufficient size to create stain in trunk. have to decompose in anaerobic environ, temp would have to be correct. have to have pounds of hamburger, wrapped up in bag, left to rot with bacteria found in human body? it may cause it. could it be caused by someone eating hamburger and wiping face? no. have seen evidence of pieces of hamburger? no. 16:22:55 - asked about greek study, did he find compounds among 478 you had found? i don't recall, i know there was quite a bit of overlap. the positive control you used, describe? since we had never studied a human decomposing in trunk before, we looked for a person decomposing in trunk. it's unfortunate but we were to find another case in montana where 4 year old died, wrapped in blanket and left in car for 3 months. point of control was to confirm compounds we found in florida trunk could be formed in that type of environment. how did test on carpet in this case compare? 4 of the 5 compounds were present, except chloroform. 16:25:30 - absence of flouride compounds, did you test control for them? if they had been present we would have IDed them. were they present? no. why? adults we've studied over years produce a number of flourinated compounds. it is assumed that flourine is these compounds accumulate in body thru bio accumulation. like eating lead paint chips. over time what you do is if you drink flourinated water over your lifetime, you will bioaccumulate flourine in bone tissue. upon death, bacteria convert to flourinated compounds. 16:27:40 - in a small child, it is assumed child - enough time has not passed to begin bioaccumulating in the body. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECROSS 16:28:40 - you addressed issue of flouride in report? i did yes. not studied in children. you're willing to testify that the reason you didn't find flouride is because she's a child and she didn't drink enough water? bioaccumulation is a well known phenomonon in animal kingdom. that is my opinion that that has happened. based on something never been studied? not studied but found in well known phenomenon called bioaccumulation. 16:30:20 - paper towels found in trash bag? i believe that's what i was told. the reason we did that is because dr. haskell sent me those paper towels. on those he IDes fly pupil casings. withdraws question. 16:31:30 - you have no first hand knowledge that those paper towels have anything to do with that stain? i do not. if it's found in conjunction with evidence in that car i don't see why it's not relevant. 16:32:30 - you don't know if the paper towel was used to clean up meat or counter? there was no meat residue on towel we extracted. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. RECESS AT 16:36:00 DUE TO FACT THAT NEXT WITNESS WILL TAKE MORE THAN 25 MINUTES FOR DIRECT. NEW LIST OF MOVIES SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN APPROVED. JURY DISMISSED FOR THE DAY. 16:37:59- ashton: defense has served him with interstate subpeona for data base, state wants to quash the subpeona. 16:40:00 baez says he'll withdraw the subpeona. ashton off mic asks another question. can't hear it. baez says he would call dr. vass in case, subject to recall.